A! 
Ai 
0! 
0! 
1  \ 

4i 
51 
6j 

7: 
7! 
8; 


A  Survey  of  the  Fiscal  Policies  of  the 

State  of  Pennsylvania  in  the 

Field  of  Education 


A  REPORT  TO  THE 
CITIZENS'  COMMITTEE  ON  THE 
FINANCES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 
TO  HON.  GIFFORD  PINCHOT 


By 


HARLAN  UPDEGRAFF 

Professor  of  Educational  Administration  in  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania 

and 

LEROY  A.  KING 

Assistant  Professor  of  Educational  Administration  in  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania 


-^  -Y 


■^^ 


K 


♦"'^Cv, 


This  book  is  UUli  on   the  last  date  stampeo  tieiow 


®€rarf  ^ 


Southern  Branch 
of  the 

^^   University  of  California 

Los  Angeles 

^\     r     f      m 


Pi!i!i:i;<;!!!l 


The  Report  of 

The  Citizens'  Committee 

on  the  Finances  of 

Pennsylvania 

to 
HON.  GIFFORD  PINCHOT 


PART  II 

Education 

UNi  of  CALIFORNIA 

AT 

LOS  ANGELES 

LIBRARY 


'••i 


A  Survey  of  the  Fiscal  Policies  of  the 

State  of  Pennsylvania  in  the 

Field  of  Education 


A  REPORT  TO  THE 
CITIZENS'  COMMITTEE  ON  THE 
FINANCES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 
TO  HON.  GIFFORD   PINCHOT 


By 


HARLAN  UPDEGRAFF 

Professor  of  Educational  Administration  in  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania 

and 

LEROY  A.  KmG 

Assistant  Professor  of  Educational  Administration  in  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania 


DECEMBER.  1922 


y      .^/      -,_     ^      »7 


Acknowledgments. 

The  Citizens'  Committee  on  the  Finances  of  the  State  of  Penn- 
sylvania was  appointed  by  Gifford  Pinchot,  then  Republican 
nominee  for  Governor  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  for  the  follow- 
ing purposes: 

(1)  To  secure  and  consider  the  best  available  figures  show- 
ing the  money  income  of  the  state  from  all  sources  during  the 
current  biennial  fiscal  period  to  secure  and  consider  the  best 
available  figures  showing  the  probable  total  revenue  from  all 
existing  sources  during  the  next  biennial  fiscal  period;  and 
to  make  needful  recommendations  as  to  sources  of  revenue 
and  methods  of  taxation,  with  the  object  of  avoiding  addi- 
tional or  unnecessary  burdens  upon  the  people  of  the  state. 

(2)  To  inquire  into  the  expenditures  of  all  monies 
appropriated  for  any  purpose  by  the  legislative  session  of 
1921;  to  consider  the  necessity  for  such  expenditures;  to 
estimate  the  probable  deficits,  where  such  exist,  and  to  make 
needful  recommendations  for  the  more  economical  and  effec- 
tive expenditure  of  the  state's  funds. 

(3)  To  examine  into  the  present  methods  of  appropria- 
tions and  expending  the  money  received  by  the  State  from 
all  sources;  to  make  recommendations  as  to  the  fiscal  policies 
of  the  state;  and  to  propose  a  form  of  budget  that  will  assist 
in  preventing  the  appropriation  of  monies  in  excess  of  the 
probable  revenue. 

The  Committee  in  undertaking  its  responsibilities  early  decided 
that  it  was  advisable  to  have  special  surveys  made  of  the  spending 
policies  of  each  of  the  larger  departments  through  an  expert 
peculiarly  qualified  in  each  respective  field. 

The  Committee  chose  for  the  experts  to  make  the  survey  of  the 
fiscal  policies  of  the  Department  of  Education,  Dr.  Harlan  Upde- 
graff.  Professor  of  Educational  Administration  in  the  University 
of  Pennsylvania,  and  Dr.  Leroy  A.  King,  Assistant  Professor  of 
Educational  Administration  in  the  University  of  Pennsylvania. 

Dr.  Updegraff  is  also  director  of  the  Bureau  of  Educational 
Measurements,  and  chairman  of  the  general  committee  in  charge 
of  Schoolmen's  Week  at  the  University.  He  has  served  as  the  head 
of  both  public  and  private  schools  and  as  chief  of  two  different 
divisions  in  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Education.    This  latter 

iii 


IV 


work  brought  him  into  close  contact  with  state  and  local  public 
school  administration  in  all  parts  of  the  United  States.  Dr.  Upde- 
graff  is  the  author  of  many  books  and  articles  dealing  with  the 
fiscal  phase  of  Educational  Administration.  In  1911  he  made  a 
study  of  the  expenses  of  city  school  systems.  He  has  collaborated 
on  surveys  of  city  school  systems  in  Baltimore,  Maryland,  in  1911; 
in  Brookline,  Massachusetts,  in  1917;  in  the  rural  schools  of 
Pennsylvania  in  1913;  and  in  Philadelphia  in  1921.  He  was  em- 
ployed as  director  of  the  financial  section  of  the  Rural  School 
Survey  of  New  York  State  made  in  1921.  His  report  is  regarded 
as  a  noteworthy  contribution  in  the  field  of  educational  finances. 
He  has  given  close  attention  to  the  educational  finances  of  Penn- 
sylvania during  the  past  few  years  and  has  written  a  number  of 
important  papers  concerning  them.  Dr.  Updegraff's  national 
standing  in  educational  matters  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  he  is 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Tenure  and  the  Committee  on 
Participation  of  Teachers  in  School  Management  appointed  by  the 
National  Educational  Association. 

Dr.  LeRoy  A.  King  is  assistant  professor  of  Educational  Admin- 
istration at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  and  is  Assistant 
Director  of  the  Bureau  of  Educational  Measurements.  From 
1910  to  1914  he  was  Professor  of  Education  and  Director  of  the 
Training  School  in  the  Lock  Haven  State  Normal  School.  From 
1914  to  1917  he  was  Supervising  Principal  of  Public  Schools. 
He  is  one  of  the  associate  editors  of  the  Journal  of  Rural  Educa- 
tion, and  is  secretary  of  the  General  Committee  of  Schoolmen's 
Week,  held  annually  at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.  He  has 
for  many  years  held  various  group  conferences  on  educational 
matters  throughout  Pennsylvania.  The  United  States  Bureau 
of  Education  published  in  1921  a  special  monograph  by  Dr. 
King  on  "The  Status  of  the  Rural  Teacher  in  Pennsylvania." 
He  has  also  assisted  in  the  survey  of  rural  schools  in  New  York 
State  and  in  the  Survey  of  Philadelphia  made  in  1921. 

Inasmuch  as  there  are  many  important  phases  of  public  policy 
entering  into  each  of  these  spending  policies  it  was  deemed  advis- 
able to  associate  with  each  of  the  experts  an  advisory  committee  to 
add  their  judgments  to  the  matter  at  hand. 

The  Advisory  Committee  on  Education  comprises  the  following 
educators  and  citizens  of  the  State. 


For  the  Citizens  of  the  State  this  Committee  has  appointed 
Franklin  N.  Brewer,  of  Moylan,  Pa.,  President  of  the  Public 
Education  and  Child  Labor  Association  of  Pennsylvania;  Mrs. 
John  0.  Miller,  of  Pittsburgh,  President  of  the  Pennsylvania 
League  of  Women  Voters;  Mr.  John  A.  Voll,  of  Philadelphia,  of  the 
Glass  Bottle  Blowers'  Association,  and  Mr.  R.  L.  Munce,  of 
Washington,  Pa.,  a  representative  farmer. 

For  the  Higher  Educational  Institutions,  Dr.  Henry  H.  Apple, 
Lancaster,  Pa.,  President  of  Franklin  and  Marshall  College; 
Dr.  Samuel  Black  McCormick,  of  Pittsburgh,  formerly  Chancellor 
of  the  University  of  Pittsburgh,  and  John  Franklin  Shields,  of 
Philadelphia,  Trustee  of  the  Pennsylvania  State  College,  have 
been  appointed. 

For  the  larger  cities,  Dr.  Edwin  C.  Broome,  of  Philadelphia, 
Superintendent  of  Schools  in  Philadelphia,  and  Mr.  Robert  E. 
Laramy,  of  Altoona,  Superintendent  of  the  Altoona  School 
District,  have  been  appointed. 

For  the  smaller  cities,  boroughs  and  townships,  Charles  S.  Davis, 
of  Steelton,  Pa.,  Superintendent  of  Steelton  Schools;  Mr.  Cannon 
Ross,  of  Doylestown,  Pa.,  Supervising  Principal  of  Doylestown 
Borough  Public  Schools;  T.  T.  Allen,  of  DuBois,  Pa.,  Superin- 
tendent of  Schools  of  DuBois,  and  Edward  S.  Ling,  Superintendent 
of  Schools  of  Abington  Township,  Glenside,  Pa.,  have  been 
appointed. 

For  County  Superintendents,  Mr.  Charles  E.  Dickey,  of  Pitts- 
burgh, Pa.,  Superintendent  of  Schools  of  Allegheny  County,  and 
Mr.  Eli  H.  Rapp,  of  Reading,  Pa.,  County  Superintendent  of 
Berks  County  Schools,  have  been  appointed. 

For  Normal  Schools,  Dr.  John  A.  H.  Keith,  Principal  of  the 
State  Normal  School  at  Indiana,  Pa.,  and  for  School  Boards, 
Mr.  John  M.  Seasholtz,  President  of  Board  of  Education,  Reading, 
Pa.,  have  been  appointed. 

These  surveys  by  experts  are  made  as  reports  to  the  Committee 
and  the  Committee  has  immediately  released  them  for  publica- 
tion. The  Committee,  of  course,  cannot  and  does  not  take  credit 
to  itself  for  either  the  work  or  the  recommendations.  Credit  in 
these  matters  is  due  solely  to  the  expert  and  those  who  have 
advised  with  him.  Clyde  L.  King, 

Chairman. 


VI 


The  Citizens'  Committee  on  the  Finances 
of  Pennsylvania. 


Clyde  L.  King,  Chairman 
Charles  J.  Rhoads,  Treasurer 
Mrs.  Walter  King  Sharpe,  Secretary 
Hon.  Franklin  Spencer  Edmonds 
Hon.  John  S.  Fisher 
Mr.  Leonard  P.  Fox 
Mr.  Allen  W.  Hagenbach 
Mr.  Alba  B.  Johnson 
Mrs.  Mary  Flinn  Lawrence 


Hon.  D.  Edward  Long 
General  Asher  Miner 
Mr.  T.  D.  Stiles 
Mrs.  William  Thaw,  Jr. 
Mrs.  Barclay  H.  W^arburton 
Mr.  Frank  P.  Willits 
Hon.  George  W.  Woodruff 
Hon.  George  Woodward 
Mr.  Paul  D.  Wright 


Preface. 

This  study  was  begun  September  1,  1922,  and  has  been  carried 
on  by  the  authors  while  doing  their  regular  university  work.  They 
have  been  generously  provided  with  competent  editorial,  steno- 
graphic and  clerical  assistants,  without  whose  whole-hearted 
efforts  the  work  could  not  have  been  completed  in  the  brief  time 
allotted.  Nevertheless,  it  has  not  been  possible  to  inquire  into  all 
phases  of  the  various  fields  designated  for  study  or  to  harmonize 
or  eliminate  minor  statistical  discrepancies;  neither  has  there  been 
time  to  secure  throughout  the  best  organization  of  material  and  the 
most  concise  forms  of  expression.  However,  the  facts  presented 
have  been  gathered  in  detail  and  treated  with  sufficient  care  and 
accuracy  to  make  them  a  satisfactory  basis  of  judgment.  It  is 
believed  also  that  the  conclusions  drawn  therefrom  are  so  stated 
as  to  leave  no  doubt  in  the  mind  of  the  reader  as  to  the  authors' 
meaning. 

While  both  have  co-operated  in  the  preparation  of  the  entire 
study,  the  chapters  on  Public  Schools,  Higher  Educational 
Institutions,  State  Department  of  Public  Instruction,  and  Relative 
Needs  have  been  prepared  by  Harlan  Updegraff,  and  the  chapter 
on  Normal  Schools  by  Leroy  A.  King. 

The  authors  join  in  expressing  their  debt  of  gratitude  to  the 
Chairman  of  the  Citizens'  Committee  on  Finances,  to  its  sub-com- 
mittee on  Education,  to  the  Advisory  Committee  on  Education, 
to  our  office  staff  and  to  all  others  who  have  assisted  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  the  study. 

The  Authors. 

December  9, 1922. 


Vll 


vin 


Table  of  Contents. 

Page 

Preface vii 

Summary  of  Findings  and  Recommendations 

Public  Schools 1 

Normal  Schools 4 

Higher  Educational  Institutions 8 

State  Department  of  Public  Instruction 11 

Relative  Needs 12 

Chapter     I — General  Introduction 15 

Chapter    II — Public  Schools 19 

Chapter  III — Normal  Schools 95 

Chapter  IV — Higher  Educational  Institutions 139 

Chapter    V — State  Department  of  Public  Instruction 170 

Chapter  VI— Relative  Needs 195 


Summary  of  Findings  and 
Recommendations. 

Public  Schools. 

1.  The  machinery  for  the  control  and  support  of  pubhc  educa- 
tion is  in  process  of  development.  The  tendency  has  been  and 
still  is  to  place  control  more  in  central  organs  rather  than  in  local 
organs  and  in  professional  officers  rather  than  in  lay  officers.  The 
tendency  in  the  field  of  support  is  for  the  state  to  bear  a  larger 
proportion  of  the  cost  of  schools.  There  are  many  unsettled  prob- 
lems in  both  of  these  fields. 

2.  Pennsylvania  lost  ground  educationally  as  compared  with 
other  states  during  the  twenty  years  previous  to  1920.  Ayres' 
"Index  Numbers  for  State  School  Systems"  indicates  this.  The 
gradual  decrease  in  the  amount  paid  teachers  as  compared  with 
other  states  is  another  proof.  Still  a  third  indication  is  the  stand- 
ing of  Pennsylvania  school  children  in  the  standard  tests  in  school 
subjects  given  near  the  close  of  this  period. 

3.  The  beginning  of  an  upward  movement  was  manifest  as  early 
as  1911,  but  it  did  not  get  fully  under  way  until  1920. 

4.  Pennsylvania  was  a  low  cost  education  state  for  a  period  of 
forty  years  previous  to  1921.  The  tax  rates  in  rural  and  city 
school  districts  in  1921-22  were  about  the  same  as  in  other  states 
having  good  educational  systems. 

5.  Elementary  school  teachers  in  rural  schools  last  year  re- 
ceived salaries  that  were  near  or  below  the  average  for  the  United 
States  as  a  whole  except  in  city  schools  of  the  first  class,  in  which 
group  salaries  seem  to  have  been  higher  than  the  norm.  Expenses 
per  pupil  in  cities  in  the  state  of  Pennsylvania  in  1921-22  were  on 
the  whole  relatively  lower  than  in  other  cities  of  the  United  States. 

6.  The  per  capita  income  of  individuals  and  corporations  in  the 
state  of  Pennsylvania  in  1919  was  less  than  in  eighteen  other 
states. 

7.  The  state  pays  a  lower  proportion  of  expenses  of  schools  in 
local  school  districts  than  the  average  state.  An  increase  in 
the  state  appropriation  for  public  schools  is  justified. 


8.  The  method  of  distribution  under  the  Edmonds  Act  is 
superior  to  any  previous  plan  followed  by  the  state. 

9.  Its  advantages  are: 

(a)  It  increases  the  length  of  the  school  term  in  fourth- 
class  districts. 

(b)  It  penalizes  districts  for  employing  teachers  holding 
low-grade  certificates. 

(c)  It  promotes  easy  budgeting. 

(d)  It  marks  a  beginning  in  differentiating  payments  on 
the  basis  of  valuations. 

10.  Its  disadvantages  are: 

(a)  Wealthy  districts  within  each  class  of  district  receive 
too  large  an  amount  per  teacher  and  poor  districts  too  small 
an  amount. 

(b)  The  grants  to  the  second  and  third  class  districts 
should  not  be  the  same. 

(c)  It  fails  to  stimulate  local  districts  to  do  their  best  and  to 
penalize  them  when  they  have  lowered  their  tax  rates. 

(d)  The  number  of  forms  of  Special  Aid  are  too  limited. 

(e)  It  does  not  cover  increments  of  salary  above  initial 
salaries. 

11.  Minor  modifications  in  the  Edmonds  Act  are  suggested 
as  follows  in  case  the  major  modifications  suggested  below  are  not 
made: 

(a)  Establishment  of  a  state-wide  minimum  salary  schedule 
in  fourth  class  districts,  over  an  eight-year  period. 

(b)  Extending  the  schedule  already  fixed  for  third  class 
districts  so  that  all  districts  should  have  an  eight-year  schedule. 

(c)  Ha'.e  state  aid  cover  increments  above  initial  salaries. 

12.  Major  modifications  should  be  made  in  the  Edm-onds  Act 
to  stop  inefficient  use  of  money  involved  in  giving  wealthy  dis- 
tricts within  each  class  of  district  as  much  per  teacher  as  poor 
districts  and  those  which  levy  a  low  tax  as  much  as  those  that 
levy  a  high  tax.  Such  an  amendment  to  the  Edmonds  Act  should 
be  put  into  effect  at  the  earliest  time  that  it  can  be  done  without 
lowering  the  standards  relative  to  teachers'  salaries  and  teachers' 
qualifications. 

13.  The  amount  of  aid  per  teacher  to  be  given  any  district 
should  be  in  inverse  proportion  to  its  ability  to  support  schools 


as  shown  by  its  true  valuation  per  teacher  and  in  direct  proportion 
to  the  effort  it  makes  to  support  schools  as  shown  by  its  true  tax 
rates.   This  is  called  the  "Ability  and  Effort  Plan." 

14.  The  true  valuation  of  property  taxable  for  schools  must 
be  ascertained  in  order  to  put  into  effect  the  "Ability  and  Effort 
Plan."  To  determine  the  rates  of  assessment  used  by  local  asses- 
sors, the  establishment  of  a  State  Tax  Commission  or  a  Revenue 
Commissioner  is  recommended. 

15.  In  the  event  that  neither  of  these  offices  is  created  the  rates 
of  assessment  reported  by  secretaries  of  school  boards  to  the 
State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  may  be  used.  These 
reports  are  reliable  in  75  percent  of  the  cases  and  the  distribution 
under  such  a  plan,  though  imperfect,  would  be  more  effective  in 
promoting  efficiency  in  local  schools  than  the  existing  method. 

16.  This  "Ability  and  Effort  Plan"  makes  it  possible  for  all 
districts  having  a  valuation  below  the  established  standard  true 
valuation  per  teacher  ($185,000)  to  have  equally  good  schools  by 
the  levying  of  the  same  tax  rate.  The  proportion  that  any  dis- 
trict receives  varies  directly  with  the  deficiency  in  its  valuation 
below  the  established  standard  valuation. 

17.  Under  the  "Ability  and  Effort  Plan"  a  district  of  any  given 
true  valuation  will  always  receive  the  same  proportion  of  its  total 
expenses  for  schools  so  long  as  its  tax  rate  does  not  exceed  the 
maximum  for  which  aid  is  granted.  Thus  as  the  district  puts 
more  into  its  schools  the  grant  from  the  state  increases  up  to  the 
standard  maximum  limit. 

18.  The  wealthier  districts  should  be  given  only  nominal  grants 
except  when  the  expenses  exceed  the  average  standard  fixed  by 
regulation. 

19.  Although  this  "Ability  and  Effort  Plan"  is  considered  the 
most  equitable  for  General  Aid  and  should  therefore  alone  be 
used,  it  can  be  combined  with  other  plans  if  necessary. 

20.  The  chief  object  of  state  aid  should  now  be  to  bring  about 
an  advance  in  the  schools  of  rural  districts  similar  to  that  which 
has  occurred  in  city  districts  during  the  past  two  years. 

21.  The  estimated  cost  of  the  plan  herein  proposed  is  less  than 
the  estimate  of  grants  under  the  present  plan  for  the  coming  fiscal 
year. 


22.  New  forms  of  Special  Aid  should  be  introduced,  encourag- 
ing: 

(a)  Enlargement  of  high  schools  in  poor  districts, 

(b)  Erection  of  school  houses  and  teacherages  in  poorer 
districts, 

(c)  Purchase    of    transportation    equipment    in    poorer 
districts, 

(d)  Use  of  transportation, 

(e)  Teachers  to  teach  in  outlying  schools, 

(f)  Abandonment  of  buildings  in  rural  districts, 

(g)  Employment  of  supervisors  in  rural  districts. 

23.  A  reorganization  of  local  school  districts  would  contribute 
in  a  marked  way  to  the  more  economical  use  of  public  money. 
Many  schools  are  now  improperly  located,  some  have  too  many 
pupils,  others  too  few.  High  school  facilities  are  difficult  to  secure. 
A  complete  redistribution  of  territory  into  new  school  districts  is 
necessary  to  the  solution  of  many  of  the  problems  involved. 

24.  The  present  method  of  estimating  the  amount  of  high 
school  tuition  to  be  paid  one  district  by  another  should  be  changed 
and  based  upon  actual  expenses  of  every  kind  and  not  for  instruc- 
tion alone.  The  present  law  should  be  so  altered  as  to  permit  dis- 
tricts to  contract  with  each  other  upon  any  terms  that  may  be 
satisfactory  to  both. 

25.  The  sources  from  which  the  permanent  state  school  fund, 
established  bj^  the  Act  of  1911,  are  increased  should  be  extended. 

26.  A  Commission  should  be  appointed  to  consider  the  ways  of 
eliminating  wastes  in  the  conduct  of  public  schools.  Such  a  com- 
mission should  include  experts  in  the  various  fields  of  school 
management  and  citizens. 

27.  The  state  auditor  and  treasurer  should  be  authorized  to 
borrow  from  separate  funds  in  the  State  Treasury  to  pay  grants 
to  public  schools  on  time. 

Normal  Schools. 

28.  The  Pennsylvania  Normal  Schools  with  the  exception  of 
three  or  four  have  smaller  enrollments  than  Normal  Schools  over 
the  country;  however,  the  number  of  Normal  School  graduates  is 
relatively  large. 


29.  The  Pennsylvania  Normal  Schools  have  generally  a  larger 
proportion  of  their  students  enrolled  in  secondary  departments 
than  most  Normal  Schools. 

30.  The  summer  sessions  are  unusually  well  attended  and  render 
a  great  service  to  the  state  by  training  teachers  who  are  in  service. 

31.  The  Extension  Departments  in  eleven  of  the  schools  show  a 
phenomenal  enrollment,  considering  that  this  work  was  only  begun 
in  September,  1921. 

32.  The  Correspondence  courses,  for  teachers  in  service  who 
cannot  attend  Extension  classes,  are  in  the  process  of  development. 

33.  The  average  number  of  students  per  teacher  is  15.1,  which 
is  slightly  above  the  average  of  the  other  schools  studied  except 
those  of  Wisconsin. 

34.  The  average  number  of  pupils  in  the  training  school  is  543, 
showing  an  average  of  four  per  graduate  in  1921,  which  is  lower 
than  three  of  the  five  standard  groups. 

35.  The  expenditures  of  the  several  schools  vary  greatly  in 
gross  amounts  and  also  in  the  amounts  spent  under  the  various 
headings  of  the  classification  of  accounts,  based  on  the  average  for 
all  of  the  Pennsylvania  Normal  Schools,  and  also  on  the  stand- 
ards obtained  from  the  country  at  large. 

36.  Similar  variations  exist  in  the  expenditures  for  the  Train- 
ing Departments  which  are  due  to  the  varied  systems  used  in  the 
several  Normal  Schools. 

37.  Practically  all  of  the  Pennsylvania  Normal  Schools  show  a 
surplus  of  receipts  over  expenditures  in  their  Housing  Depart- 
ments (dormitory,  dining  hall  and  laundry)  for  1921.  The  cost 
of  housing  at  some  of  the  schools  is  so  low  that  the  question  arises 
whether  these  schools  are  not  sacrificing  comfortable  living  condi- 
tions. It  should  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that  some  of  the 
schools,  on  account  of  limited  allotments  of  state  funds,  are 
obliged  to  transfer  a  surplus  from  housing  to  the  educational  budget. 

38.  There  is  a  wide  variation  in  the  average  salaries  of  the 
teachers  among  the  different  schools  from  the  standpoints  of 
median  salary  and  of  salary  per  student  enrolled. 

39.  The  allotment  of  state  appropriations  to  the  different 
schools  varies  greatly  in  the  percentage  of  total  expenses  or 
receipts  and  from  the  standpoint  of  per  student  enrolled. 


40.  The  Pennsylvania  Normal  Schools  do  not  train  enough 
teachers  for  the  urban  schools  or  for  the  rural  schools.  The  enroll- 
ment for  1922-23  is  more  than  25  percent  greater  than  for  1921-22, 
and  it  is  probable  that  the  larger  number  of  Normal  School 
graduates  in  1922-23  will  no  more  than  meet  the  needs  in  the 
cities  and  boroughs. 

41.  Financial  conditions  in  Pennsylvania  Normal  Schools  have 
improved  greatly  during  the  past  year  or  two  in  line  with  the 
marked  progress  of  the  Normal  Schools  in  all  educational  aspects. 
Much  of  the  credit  for  this  improvement  is  due  to  the  State  De- 
partment of  Public  Instruction.  The  Administration  Bureau  of 
the  State  Department  of  Public  Instruction  introduced  an  excel- 
lent accounting  system  which  has  been  most  valuable  in  this 
study.  There  have  undoubtedly  been  some  errors  in  the  classi- 
fication of  receipts  and  expenditures,  but  when  the  final  state- 
ments of  the  several  schools  in  the  office  of  the  State  Superintend- 
ent were  checked  by  the  corresponding  statements  of  the  Auditor- 
General's  office,  the  two  were  found  to  be  in  substantial  agreement. 
The  financial  report  of  the  Normal  Schools  prior  to  1921-22  was 
organized  on  a  basis  so  different  from  the  present  one  that  com- 
parisons with  former  years  were  practically  impossible.  The 
present  Normal  School  administration  is  moving  in  the  right 
direction.  The  wide  variations  in  expenses  and  state  allotments 
mentioned  throughout  this  study  indicate  that  there  are  desirable 
financial  results  yet  to  be  achieved. 

42.  In  view  of  the  great  variations  in  expenses  among  the 
Normal  Schools  under  the  various  headings,  it  is  recommended 
that  a  greater  amount  of  standardization  be  established  by  the 
State  Department  in  order  to  give  a  more  equitable  distribution 
of  the  state  appropriation  for  Normal  Schools.  Such  standardiza- 
tion should  be  based  on  an  extended  study  of  the  Normal  School 
system  in  regard  to  size,  need,  efficiency,  and  service  to  the  State. 

43.  A  larger  appropriation  for  current  expense  should  be  made 
for  the  Normal  Schools  of  Pennsylvania  as  now  constituted. 

44.  A  portion  of  the  appropriation  should  be  definitely  set  aside 
for  extension  work  that  will  benefit  especially  the  non-self-support- 
ing extension  center  and  for  the  summer  session,  agencies  especially 
devoted  to  the  training  of  teachers  in  service. 


45.  A  more  definite  relationship  should  be  established  between 
the  state  authorities  and  the  Local  Boards  of  Trustees  in  order 
to  insure  definite  responsibility  especially  relative  to  financial 
matters. 

46.  Since  the  housing  accounts  at  the  several  Normal  Schools 
are  relatively  large,  and  since  there  are  fluctuations  in  wages  and 
prices,  it  is  desirable  that  all  of  those  responsible  for  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  State  Normal  Schools,  viz.:  Superintendent  of 
Public  Instruction,  State  Council  of  Education,  and  thirteen 
Boards  of  Trustees  and  the  thirteen  principals — should  establish 
a  definite  policy  relative  to  a  standard  of  comfort,  charges  per 
student,  the  disposition  of  any  surplus  that  may  arise,  and  the 
creation  of  a  reserve  or  contingent  fund,  thus  safeguarding  the 
financial  interest  which  the  Commonwealth  has  because  of  its 
ownership. 

47.  A  more  efficient  administration  would  be  promoted  by  such 
a  reorganization  of  control  that  would  place  the  responsibility  for 
the  distribution  and  use  of  state  funds  on  a  central  lay  hoard  or  the 
State  Council  of  Education.  Such  a  board  should,  through  its 
expert  agents,  exercise  supervision  over  the  business  adminis- 
tration of  the  local  boards  and  the  principals  so  as  to  promote  on 
the  one  hand  the  proper  expansion  of  each  school  and  on  the  other 
hand  a  wise  economy  in  expenditures  through  the  introduction 
of  better  business  methods  and  more  careful  purchasing.  The 
Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  should  be  the  secretary  and 
chief  executive  officer  of  such  a  board  and  the  agents  of  the  board 
should  work  under  his  direction. 

48.  A  Normal  School  Commission  should  be  appointed  by  the 
Governor  with  the  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction, 
ex-officio  member,  to  make  a  more  extended  study  of  the  normal 
schools  as  to  (a)  the  best  form  of  board  suggested  above  under 
paragraph  47,  (b)  providing  better  service  to  the  state,  as  an  agency 
for  the  training  of  public  school  teachers,  (c)  the  organization  of 
additional  normal  schools  in  cities  to  train  teachers  primarily  to 
supply  needs  of  cities  and  boroughs,  (d)  the  advisability  of  closing 
or  relocating  some  existing  normal  schools,  and  (e)  the  advisability 
and  feasibility  of  enlarging  the  scope  of  the  work  of  certain  normal 
schools. 


8 

Higher  Educational  Institutions. 

49.  Pennsylvania  has  complied  with  the  mandates  of  its  earlier 
constitutions  relative  to  universities  and  seminaries  by  chartering 
private  corporations  in  which  it  has  exercised  some  control  and  to 
which  it  has  granted  some  support. 

50.  No  higher  educational  institution  in  the  Commonwealth 
may  be  said  to  be  a  state  institution  in  the  strictest  sense  of  that 
term,  although  there  are  three,  the  University  of  Pennsylvania, 
the  University  of  Pittsburgh  and  the  Pennsylvania  State  College, 
which  because  of  their  connections  with  the  state  have  been 
generally  regarded  as  semi-public  institutions.  Pennsylvania 
State  College  more  nearly  satisfies  the  conditions  requisite  for 
being  a  strictly  state   institution  than  either  of  the  other  two. 

51.  The  population  of  Pennsylvania  and  the  number  of  high 
school  graduates  each  year  requires  three  state  institutions  of 
higher  learning. 

52.  The  location  of  each  of  these  three  institutions — University 
of  Pennsylvania,  University  of  Pittsburgh  and  Pennsylvania 
State  College — presents  peculiar  advantages  for  certain  fields  of 
instruction,  all  of  which  should  be  utilized. 

53.  The  percent  of  income  from  student  fees  in  the  two  univer- 
sities is  considerably  above  the  desh-ed  standard  of  50  percent, 
while  the  incomes  from  endowment  and  gifts  are  considerably 
lower  than  they  should  be.  This  means  that  private  effort  has 
failed  to  do  its  full  share  and  that  the  State  has  made  up  the  differ- 
ences. The  student  fees  of  Pennsylvania  State  College  constitute 
from  one-fourth  to  one-fifth  of  the  total  income.  This  large 
proportion  is  caused  by  the  failure  of  appropriations  to  meet  the 
increased  costs  of  higher  education. 

54.  The  equipment  and  the  salaries  of  the  personnel  of  all  three 
of  the  Pennsylvania  institutions  are  not  of  as  high  standard 
relatively  as  they  were  a  number  of  years  ago.  This  is  because  of 
the  considerable  growth  in  the  development  of  universities  and  of 
land  grant  colleges  in  other  states.  Pennsylvania  is  going  through 
the  same  lagging  behind  with  regard  to  higher  education  that  she 
has  passed  through  during  the  past  twenty  years  in  the  fields  of 
elementary  and  secondary  education. 

55.  The  finances  in  all  three  of  the  higher  educational  institu- 
tions of  Pennsylvania  seem  to  have  been  economically  administered. 


56.  The  income  from  endowment  and  appropriations  of  the 
state  universities  in  the  West  and  of  the  private  universities  in  the 
East  have  so  increased  that  if  these  two  Pennsylvania  universities 
are  to  be  conducted  in  the  future  upon  the  basis  of  private  support, 
it  is  necessary  that  their  endowments  be  increased  up  to  $40,- 
000,000  or  $50,000,000  each,  and  that  considerable  enlargement, 
improvement  and  extension  be  made  in  their  equipment. 

57.  All  three  of  these  institutions  turned  away  students  last 
year  because  of  lack  of  accommodations. 

68.  While  all  three  institutions  have  free  scholarships,  they  are 
limited  in  number.  Most  of  those  granted  are  based  upon  a 
competitive  examination.  It  is  thus  impossible  for  many  promis- 
ing youths  of  Pennsylvania  of  inadequate  means  to  obtain  free 
tuition  in  institutions  of  higher  learning.  While  senatorial 
scholarships  make  it  possible  for  a  few  students  to  obtain  this 
benefit,  it  is  unfortunate  that  the  benefit  is  obtained  through 
political  influence. 

59.  The  century  old  plan  of  providing  higher  education  through 
private  institutions  is  seemingly  reaching  the  breaking  point. 

60.  It  is  incumbent  upon  the  state  to  find  ways  in  which  more 
distinctly  state  institutions  may  be  secured  either  (1)  by  greatly 
increasing  appropriations  to  the  Boards  of  Trustees  of  the  three 
institutions  under  such  an  arrangement  as  will  guarantee  that  the 
appropriations  will  be  spent  so  as  to  satisfy  most  efficiently  the 
needs  of  the  state  or  (2)  by  making  suitable  arrangement  with  the 
Boards  of  Trustees  of  other  private  institutions  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  same  purpose  or  (3)  by  the  establishment  of  new 
institutions  entirely  under  state  support  and  control. 

61.  Pennsylvania  State  College  can  readily  become  a  purely 
state  institution  and  should  become  such. 

62.  It  is  still  uncertain  whether  private  funds  can  come  to  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania  and  the  University  of  Pittsburgh  in 
such  abundance  as  to  enable  them  to  maintain  the  position  in  the 
education  of  the  state  and  the  nation  that  rightfully  belong  to 
them.  Failing  in  this  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  each  should  enter 
into  such  an  arrangement  with  the  state  as  would  secure,  on  the 
one  hand,  the  needed  increase  in  plant,  equipment  and  income  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  as  would  guarantee  to  the  state  that  the  money 


10 

so  given  will  be  spent  in  ways  which  will  most  contribute  to  the 
advancement  of  its  welfare. 

63.  The  present  method  of  making  appropriations  to  the 
I'niversities  is  not  altogether  favorable.  They  hesitate  to  incur 
any  obligation  extending  beyond  the  term  of  the  appropriation 
because  of  the  fear  that  it  may  not  be  renewed. 

64.  Until  this  question  relative  to  the  two  universities  is  decided, 
it  would  seem  desirable  that  all  appropriations  made  to  them  as 
well  as  to  Pennsylvania  State  College  should  be  placed  under  the 
control  of  a  central  state  board  without  disturbing  the  present 
boards  in  charge  of  these  institutions.  Such  boards  should  seek  to 
avoid  all  financial  duplication  in  work  and  to  foster  the  develop- 
ment of  those  departments  for  which  each  institution  is  best  suited. 

65.  As  a  beginning  in  the  development  of  such  a  board  it  is 
recommended  that  the  appropriations  for  Schools  of  Education 
in  each  of  these  institutions  be  placed  under  its  control  and  that  it 
have  the  authority  to  approve  budgets  and  rules  and  regulations 
proposed  by  each  institution.  Extension  courses  might  likewise 
be  placed  under  the  control  of  this  board  in  order  to  eliminate 
duplication  and  to  maintain  standards  for  admission  to  the  courses 
given  and  for  credit  received. 

66.  Such  a  board  should  work  in  the  closest  co-operation  with 
the  State  Department  of  Public  Instruction,  and  services  of  the 
members  of  the  State  Department  and  of  the  Schools  of  Education 
should  be  exchanged.  The  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruc- 
tion should  serve  as  secretary  and  executive  officer  of  the  board  of 
higher  education. 

67.  Comparative  data  relative  to  appropriations  for  costs  of 
higher  education  both  in  the  universities  and  land  grant  colleges 
show  that  the  state  would  be  warranted  in  granting  considerable 
increases  to  each  of  the  two  institutions  under  the  administration 
of  such  a  board  and  likewise  to  Pennsylvania  State  College,  but 
not  to  the  same  degree.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  state  has 
heretofore  supported  State  College  more  adequately  than  the 
other  two  institutions. 

68.  A  Commission  should  be  appointed  to  study  the  higher 
educational  institutions  of  the  state  with  a  view  of  determining 
which  should  be  supported  by  the  state,  the  departments  in  each 
that  should  be  supported  by  the  state,  the  ways  to  avoid  unwar- 


11 

ranted  duplication  of  work,  the  best  form  of  central  board,  the 
relation  of  such  a  board  to  the  board  in  charge  of  each  institution, 
the  relation  of  the  central  boards  to  other  central  educational 
governmental  agencies  and  similar  questions. 

State  Department  of  Public  Instruction. 

69.  The  State  Departments  of  Public  Instruction  of  other  states 
increased  their  personnel  more  rapidly  than  did  that  of  Pennsyl- 
vania during  the  fifteen  years  preceding  1920. 

70.  The  number  of  staff  officers  now  in  the  State  Department  of 
Public  Instruction  in  Pennsylvania  in  proportion  to  the  number  of 
pupils  enrolled  in  the  public  schools  is  near  the  norm  for  eleven 
representative  states. 

71.  While  the  salaries  paid  these  staff  officers  are  higher  than 
in  other  states,  they  are  no  higher  than  was  necessary  to  secure  the 
services  of  the  individuals  employed.  The  fact  that  these  officers 
are  not  permitted  to  take  fees  for  services  in  Pennsylvania  or  to 
accept  contracts  for  writing  books  should  be  taken  into  account  in 
this  connection.  Also  the  fact  that  in  other  states  the  salaries  are 
frequently  fixed  by  statute  and  are  lower  than  they  should  be  in 
order  to  secure  persons  of  the  highest  efficiency. 

72.  Salaries  are  no  higher  than  are  necessary  to  secure  and  hold 
men  and  women  of  high  qualifications.  Twelve  percent  of  the 
staff  have  left  to  accept  positions  elsewhere  under  conditions  that 
would  give  them  larger  financial  returns  than  in  the  State  Depart- 
ment of  Public  Instruction. 

73.  The  expenses  of  the  Department  per  pupil  enrolled  in  the 
state  and  the  per  capita  of  population  in  the  state  are  not  quite 
so  high  as  the  norm  furnished  by  eleven  representative  northern 
states. 

74.  The  Bureaus  have  been,  on  the  whole,  conducted  in  an 
efficient  manner.  It  is  believed  that  the  data  presented  relative 
to  the  number  of  schools  visited,  conferences  held,  addresses  given, 
letters  written,  syllabi  prepared,  hours  per  day  spent  at  work,  etc., 
when  considered  in  connection  with  the  high  qualifications  of  the 
staff  clearly  indicate  that  the  state  has  gotten  full  return  for  the 
money  expended. 

75.  Certain  of  the  Bureaus  are  able  to  show  their  actual  savings 
of  money  to  school  districts  or  of  increased  amounts  of  education 


12 

furnished  to  and  received  by  school  children  of  the  state  to  such 
an  extent  as  to  warrant  the  maintenance  of  the  Department  upon 
the  present  scale  of  efficiency. 

76.  Interchange  of  services  of  specialists  in  the  Department 
of  Public  Instruction  and  the  members  of  the  faculty  of  the  Schools 
of  Education  and  normal  schools  should  be  fostered  in  order  that 
both  the  work  of  the  department  and  of  the  educational  institutions 
may  be  made  the  more  efficient. 

77.  The  question  of  appropriations  for  vocational  education 
should  be  carefully  considered  inasmuch  as  this  branch  of  educa- 
tion seems  to  be  well  established  in  the  public's  esteem. 

78.  It  is  recommended  also  that  careful  consideration  be  given 
to  the  development  of  the  work  in  Americanization  in  order  that 
better  results  may  be  obtained  for  the  money  expended. 

79.  The  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  should  so 
co-ordinate  the  expenditui'es  in  all  of  thevarious  classes  of  schools — 
universities,  colleges,  normal  schools,  high  and  elementary  schools — 
as  to  make  it  possible  for  each  to  render  the  greatest  service  to  all 
the  others.  This  may  be  accomplished  if  he  is  made  the  secretary 
and  executive  officer  of  the  various  lay  boards  which  control  the 
various  appropriations  to  each  of  the  various  classes  of  schools. 

Relative  Needs. 

80.  The  total  appropriations  for  all  educational  purposes  for 
the  biennium  1921-23  amounted  to  $37,834,316,  two  and  one- 
fourth  times  as  much  as  for  the  biennium  1909-11. 

81.  The  appropriations  for  all  other  purposes  increased  in  the 
same  proportion. 

82.  Thirty-two  percent  of  the  total  appropriation  for  1921-23 
were  for  education.  The  norm  for  all  the  states  was  37.5  percent 
in  1919.  Pennsylvania  as  judged  by  the  standard  would  then  be 
warranted  in  devoting  a  larger  proportion  of  the  state  appropria- 
tion to  education  than  at  present. 

83.  Sixty-five  percent  of  the  appropriation  is  for  state  aid  to 
local  public  schools.    This  is  20  percent  less  than  in  1909-11. 

84.  Normal  schools,  colleges  and  universities  each  receive  13 
percent  of  the  total,  a  little  more  than  double  in  each  case  the 
percentage  of  1909-11. 


13 

85.  Equal  percentage  (2.4)  goes  to  the  Department  of  Public 
Instruction  and  to  county  administration,  350  percent  and  170 
percent  respectively  of  what  they  were  in  1909-11. 

86.  The  present  appropriation  for  the  Department  of  Public 
Instruction  is  not  excessive  when  compared  with  expense  of  other 
state  offices. 

87.  Pennsylvania  is  no  longer  the  state  that  gives  the  largest 
grants  to  public  schools.  Three  states  make  larger  grants,  two  of 
which  have  less  population  than  Pennsylvania. 

Six  states  granted  larger  appropriations  in  1919-20  to  normal 
schools,  five  of  which  have  less  population  than  Pennsylvania. 

Eight  states  made  larger  appropriations  for  universities  and 
colleges  in  1919-20,  all  of  which  have  less  population  than  Penn- 
sylvania. The  appropriation  of  three  other  states  were  within 
$75,000  less. 

88.  The  combined  appropriation  for  higher  education  in  Michi- 
gan,Wisconsin  and  Minnesota,  which  states  together  have  approxi- 
mately as  many  people  as  Pennsylvania  alone,  was  four  times  that 
of  Pennsylvania. 

89.  Measuring  the  appropriations  for  1919-21  on  the  basis  of 
per  capita  of  population,  Pennsylvania  is  slightly  below  the  norm 
for  public  schools,  about  one-half  of  the  norm  for  normal  schools 
and  about  four-tenths  of  the  norm  for  universities  and  colleges. 
The  appropriation  for  1921-23  while  higher,  probably  did  not  go 
above  the  norm  in  any  case  except  possibly  in  normal  schools, 
and  did  not  approach  the  norm  in  the  case  of  universities  and 
colleges. 

90.  Measuring  the  appropriations  for  1921-23  upon  the  basis 
of  income  per  inhabitant,  Pennsylvania's  appropriation  for  public 
schools  was  about  three-fourths  the  norm,  for  normal  schools 
about  one-third  greater  than  the  norm,  and  for  colleges  and 
universities  about  four-ninths  of  the  norm. 

91.  On  the  whole  Pennsylvania's  appropriation  as  measured  by 
per  capita  costs  and  income  for  1921-23  is  near  the  standard 
formed  by  all  the  states  in  the  case  of  public  schools  and  normal 
schools,  but  is  still  considerably  below  in  the  case  of  higher 
educational  institutions. 


CHAPTER  I. 

General  Introduction. 

For  a  century  or  more  Pennsylvania  has,  in  common  with  the 
other  states  of  the  Union,  been  gradually  building  up  a  system  of 
public  education. 

At  the  critical  stages  in  its  development  certain  questions  have 
been  pretty  well  settled  by  the  votes  of  the  people  or  by  the 
Legislature.  It  is  no  longer  questioned  that  public  education  shall 
be  universal,  that  it  shall  be  free  to  all  and  that  it  shall  be  sup- 
ported by  all,  and  that  it  shall  be  controlled  by  all.  It  is  not  so 
clearly  established,  however,  just  how  much  of  the  children's  time 
should  be  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  State  in  order  for  them  to 
secure  the  benefits  of  public  education,  nor  whether  universal  free 
education  supported  by  all  and  controlled  by  all  shall  extend  to 
schools  of  college  and  university  grade,  nor  how  much  control  the 
State  should  exercise  over  private  educational  institutions. 

But  the  unsettled  questions  are  not  confined  solely  to  these 
more  general  aspects  of  public  education.  There  are  many  ques- 
tions having  to  do  with  the  conduct  of  the  schools  regarding  which 
there  are  differences  of  opinion.  These  questions  have  to  do  both 
with  the  control  and  the  financial  support  of  the  public  schools. 
Most  of  the  questions  in  which  differences  of  opinion  arise  in  each 
of  these  two  fields  may  be  classified  under  one  of  the  two  following 
heads: 

1.  Whether  the  authority  should  he  exercised  and  the  support 
furnished  by  the  state  or  hy  local  school  districts. 

2.  Whether  the  function  should  he  performed  (a)  hy  a  legislative 
agency  such  as  the  Legislature,  State  Board  of  Education  or  Local 
School  Board  {usually  laymen),  or  (6)  hy  an  Executive  Officer 
(usually  an  educational  expert)  such  as  the  State  Superintendent, 
County  Superintendent,  District  Superintendent  or  Supervising 
Principal. 

The  tendencies  have  been  manifest  not  only  in  Pennsylvania 
but  in  all  of  the  other  states  of  the  Union,  (1)  to  take  away  from 
local  school  boards  the  very  wide  discretion    originally  granted 

15 


16 

them  at  the  first  establishment  of  the  state's  public  school  system, 
(2)  to  place  a  larger  share  of  the  management,  as  well  as  the 
expense  of  conducting  the  schools,  upon  the  state  government, 
and  (3)  to  increase  the  power  and  extend  the  duties  of  state  and 
local  executive  officers  at  the  expense  of  the  lay  citizens  holding 
office  on  local  boards.  These  tendencies  have  been  persistent  and 
have  been  observed  in  most  of  the  states  of  the  Union  without 
many  backward  steps.  These  withdrawals  of  authority  were  made 
in  all  cases  by  acts  of  the  Legislature,  elected  by  the  people  and  in 
accordance  with  the  state  constitution  as  framed  by  the  people 
and  had  as  their  purpose  the  improvement  of  the  efficiency  of  the 
schools. 

These  transfers  may  be  divided  into  four  different  classes: 

1.  Those  in  which  the  Legislature  assumed  the  power  of  act- 
ing upon  matters  formerly  decided  by  the  local  school 
boards.  As  an  example  of  this  may  be  mentioned  (a)  the 
requirement  that  music  shall  be  a  part  of  the  course  of 
study  in  all  the  public  schools  of  the  state;  (b)  the  fixing 
of  the  minimum  salary  to  be  paid  to  the  teachers. 

2.  Those  which  authorized  the  State  Superintendent  of 
Public  Instruction  to  exercise  certain  authority  over  the 
conduct  of  local  schools,  as  for  example  in  the  condemna- 
tion of  school  buildings  passed  in  1911  and  in  the  require- 
ment that  he  should  enforce  in  the  local  school  districts 
the  provisions  of  the  Compulsory  Education  Act  passed  in 
1911. 

3.  Those  which  authorized  the  State  Board  of  Educa- 
tion to  pass  supplementary  legislation,  as  in  the  finding  of 
the  requirements  for  teachers'  certificates. 

4.  Those  which  gave  the  local  superintendent  the  authority 
and  tht  right  to  exercise  functions  performed  by  the  local 
board  as  in  the  recommendation  of  text-books  to  be 
adopted  by  the  schools,  and  in  the  first  class  districts,  in 
the  nomination  of  persons  to  fill  certain  positions. 

These  transfers  of  authority  and  responsibility  have  usually  been 
brought  about  by  some  such  process  as  follows: 

One  or  more  progressive  school  districts  desired  to  incor- 
porate into  the  schools  some  new  feature.  If  there  was  no 
authority  in  the  state  law  to  do  this,  permissive  legislation 
was  sought  and  usually  secured,  inasmuch  as  no  compulsion 
was  exercised  upon  other  districts.  Soon  thereafter,  if  the 
project  was  considered  worthy  of  general  adoption,  the  state 


17 

granted  Special  Aid  in  order  to  stimulate  other  districts  to 
adopt  it.  As  time  went  on  a  sufficient  number  of  districts 
incorporated  this  new  feature  until  it  was  considered  of  suffi- 
cient importance  to  be  required  in  all  of  the  schools  within  a 
certain  group  of  districts.  Efforts  were  then  made  by  the 
friends  of  public  education  to  secure  the  passage  of  an  act 
of  the  Legislature  compelling  certain  classes  of  districts,  or 
all  districts,  to  bring  their  schools  up  to  the  new  standards. 
All  of  the  districts  in  the  state  covered  by  the  Act  were  then 
supposed  to  observe  the  law.  Frequently  the  State  Superin- 
tendent was  authorized  or  required  to  withhold  the  state 
subsidy  from  such  districts  as  did  not  comply  with  the  law. 

At  this  point  one  of  the  peculiarities  of  our  form  of  goviem- 
ment  manifested  itself.  As  a  matter  of  fact  some  local 
districts  did  not  observe  the  Act  and  there  was  no  effective 
provision  in  our  form  of  government  to  secure  its  enforce- 
ment. This  was  due  to  the  fact  that  we  do  not  have  a  central- 
ized executive  system  composed  of  officers  located  at  the 
State  Capitol  and  in  districts  throughout  the  state  to  compel 
the  local  executive  or  local  boards  to  comply  with  the  legisla- 
tion as  passed.  Variable  compliance  and  non-compliance  in 
different  districts  with  the  provision  of  state  law  in  matters 
pertaining  to  education  has  been  one  of  the  noticeable  char- 
acteristics of  the  public  school  system  of  Pennsylvania. 

Our  school  legislation  has  been  centralized,  but  our  execu- 
tion of  the  laws  has  been  left  largely  in  its  decentralized  form. 

Throughout  the  entire  procedure  these  efforts  toward  efficiency 
may  seem  to  have  been  in  conflict  with  the  forces  of  local  control. 
People  have  been  opposed  to  giving  up  the  expression  of  their  will 
to  the  central  Legislature  or  to  the  State  Board  of  Education  as 
to  what  their  local  schools  should  be.  They  have  likewise  opposed 
the  granting  of  authority  to  state  officers  either  directly  or  in- 
directly and  have  opposed  the  enforcement,  in  their  own  particular 
communities,  of  certain  laws  which  have  been  passed  by  the  State 
Legislature.  They  have,  however,  welcomed  state  support  but 
at  the  same  time  have  not  wished  to  observe  the  standards  re- 
quired in  order  to  receive  it. 

The  situation  in  Pennsylvania  is  still  in  process  of  change. 
The  solution  involves  a  number  of  unsettled  questions  which  are 
of  great  importance  not  only  to  schools  but  to  the  state  and  to 
society  as  a  whole.  Is  the  individual  to  be  encouraged  in  the  exer- 
cise of  his  own  independent  thinking  in  his  participation  in  govern- 
ment?   In  the  case  of  a  community  that  is  overwhelmingly  opposed 


18 

to  a  particular  Act  of  the  Legislature,  to  what  extent  is  it  to  be 
allowed  not  to  comply  with  that  legislation?  Should  it  become  a 
principle  of  action  that  a  particular  practice  in  connection  with 
schools  should  be  observed  with  a  certain  percentage  of  the  school 
districts  of  the  state  under  permissive  legislation,  before  a  manda- 
tory act  of  the  Legislature  makes  it  compulsory  in  all  of  the 
districts?  Which  is  the  better  plan  in  order  to  secure  enforce- 
ment of  educational  acts:  (a)  To  educate  local  communities  as 
to  the  wisdom  of  the  state  law  or  (b)  to  compel  them  to  observe 
it?  Does  a  measure  which  promotes  the  efficiency  of  the  schools, 
likewise  by  virtue  of  that  fact  promote  the  well  being  of  the  state? 
Is  it  the  function  of  the  public  school  system  not  only  to  educate 
the  children  but  also  to  promote  greater  intelligence  in  citizenship 
among  the  voters?  How  can  the  layman  be  brought  to  a  more 
intelligent  appreciation  of  the  views  of  the  expert  in  making  his 
decisions  upon  education  and  other  public  questions? 

Certain  of  these  and  similar  questions  will  be  discussed  in  con- 
nection with  the  treatment  of  the  data  relative  to  the  present 
educational  situation  in  Pennsylvania.  It  would  seem  that  the 
solution  of  the  present  problems  should  be  made  in  such  a  way  as 
to  promote  the  highest  well-being  to  the  state  in  the  long  run,  and 
not  the  interest  of  the  schools  alone  nor  of  any  particular  com- 
munity alone,  but  according  to  the  best  interests  of  all  people  of 
the  state  in  all  of  their  activities. 


CHAPTER  II. 

Public  Schools. 

Situation  in  Pennsylvania  During  Second  Decade  of 
20th  Century,  1910-20. 

Relative  Position  of  Pennsylvania  Schools. — A  study  of  the 

educational  statistics  of  the  various  states  in  the  Union  during 

the  past  thirty  years  points  to  the  conclusion  that  Pennsylvania 

has,  during  this  time,  gradually  lost  ground  as  compared  with  the 

other  states  in  the  development  of  her  schools.     In  proof  of  this 

Pennsylvania's  rank  among  the  states  of  the  Union  in  a  number 

of  important  items  on  which  data  are  available  is  shown  in 

Table  1. 

TABLE  1. 

Pennsylvania's  Rank  Among  the  States  of  the  Union  in  Certain 
Important  Items  for  Specified  Years,' 


Years 

Percent  of  school 
population   at- 
tending school 
daily 

Average  days 

attended  by  each 

child  of  school 

age 

Average  number 
of  days  schools 
were  kept  open 

Percent  that 
high  school  at- 
tendance was  of 
total  attendance 

1890 

3 
28 
23 
24 

7 
18 
19 
21 

14 

9 

18 

10 

25 

1900 

26 

1910 

28 

1918 

29 

iThis  Table  is  adapted  from  Ayres'  "An  Index  Number  for  State  School  Systems."  Pages 
31.  33.  35  and  49. 

Salaries  of  Teachers. — The  state  was  also  falling  greatly 
behind  the  others  in  the  average  salaries  paid  teachers  during  this 
period.  Table  2  taken  from  Updegraff's  Brief  submitted  to  the 
Commission  on  Constitutional  Amendment  and  Revision  of  the 
Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania,  1920  (No.  32),  shows  that  while 
salaries  did  increase  over  the  28  year  period,  nevertheless  the 
salaries  were  lower  during  the  entire  time  than  in  the  United 
States  as  a  whole,  and  that  the  percent  of  difference  greatly 
increased  until  in  1916  the  average  monthly  amount  paid  to  men 
teachers  in  Pennsylvania  was  24.3  percent  less  than  in  the  United 
States  as  a  whole,  while  the  average  paid  women  was  32.3  per- 
cent less. 


19 


20 

TABLE  2. 

Average  Salaries  of  Teachers  in  United  States  and  in 

Pennsylvania  as  Given  in  Reports  of  United  States 

Commissioner  of  Education  for  Years  Indicated.^ 


MEN 

WOMEN 

Year 

United 
States 

Penn- 
sylvania 

Difference 

United 
States 

Penn- 
sylvania 

Difference 

Dollars 

Percent 

Dollars 

Percent 

1888... 
1893... 
1903... 
1913... 
1915... 
1916.. 

$41.75 
46.39 
49.98 
78.29 
82.35 
85.36 

$38.54 
43.94 
44.82 
65.82 
68.43 
68.63 

3.21 

2.45 

5.16 

12.47 

13.92 

16.73 

8.3 
5.6 
11.6 
18.9 
20.3 
24.3 

$34.21 
38.46 
40.51 
61.31 
64.72 
66.88 

$30.16 
33.04 
34.11 
48.69 
50.14 
50.55 

4.05 

5.42 

6.40 

12.62 

14.58 

16.33 

13.4 
16.4 
18.8 
28.0 
29.1 
32.3 

'Commission  on  Constitutional  Amendment  and  Revision — Memoranda  and  Briefs  No.  32, 
April  7,  1920.  Page  14. 

The  nation-wide  study  made  of  teachers'  salaries  for  the  year 
1913  by  the  National  Education  Association  shows  that  the 
salaries  of  teachers  in  cities  in  Pennsylvania  were  smaller  than  the 
standards  for  cities  of  the  same  size  in  the  United  States  as  a 
whole  and  that  they  were  much  lower  than  in  New  Jersey  and 
New  York  and  somewhat  lower  than  in  the  State  of  Ohio.  Salaries 
of  superintendents  both  in  large  and  small  cities  were  likewise 
low,  only  nine  or  ten  states  paying  lower  amounts.*  During  this 
time  Pennsylvania  was  a  favorite  hunting-ground  for  superin- 
tendents of  other  states  for  securing  superior  teachers.  Even  the 
best  graduates  of  some  of  the  normal  schools  were  going  directly 
from  graduation  to  New  Jersey  and  New  York,  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  the  state  of  Pennsylvania  had  given  them  their 
teacher  preparation.  One  reason  why  it  was  difficult  to  secure 
experienced  teachers  was  the  very  prevalent  custom  of  continuing 
experienced  teachers  on  at  the  same  salary  year  after  year  and  of 
not  granting  superior  teachers  higher  salaries  than  those  of  inferior 
ability. 

Qualifications  of  Teachers. — Regarding  the  qualifications  of 
teachers  in  the  state  the  following  data  are  available  for  teachers 

•See  Updegraff  in  Schoolmen's  Week  Proceedings  University  of  Pennsylvania — 1916.  pp.  43-67  , 
and  1918,  pp.  61-65. 


21 

in  rural  schools  for  the  year  1918.  t  Twenty-three  percent  of  the 
teachers  in  schools  under  county  superintendent's  supervision 
(including  borough  and  rural)  were  new  teachers  without  experi- 
ence, only  31  percent  had  normal  school  training  and  but  5  percent 
were  college  graduates.  In  the  one-teacher  rural  schools  39  per- 
cent of  the  teachers  had  never  attended  a  high  school;  32  percent 
were  without  experience;  but  39  percent  of  them  had  been  teaching 
in  the  same  position  in  the  previous  year  and  only  15  percent 
were  normal  school  graduates.  In  the  cities  of  the  state  during 
the  same  year  only  about  37  percent  had  normal  school  training 
and  11  percent  were  college  graduates;  52  percent  held  certificates 
not  requiring  such  high  standards  known  as  permanent,  profes- 
sional and  provisional  certificates.  This  combination  of  low 
salaries,  meagre  preparation  and  little  experience  would  naturally 
produce  poor  teaching. 

Relative  Standing  of  Pennsylvania  School  Children. — The 
results  of  giving  the  standard  tests  in  school  subjects  in  boroughs 
and  in  city  school  systems  by  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  and 
the  University  of  Pittsburgh  during  the  years  1918, 1919  and  1920 
furnish  data  which  throws  direct  light  upon  this  point.  Tables  3, 
4  and  5  for  fundamental  operations  in  arithmetic,  silent  reading 
and  reasoning  in  arithmetic  show  that  the  children  in  the  schools 
of  Pennsylvania  did  not,  on  the  whole,  display  so  good  ability  as 
children  in  corresponding  schools  in  other  states.  Although  these 
are  the  scores  of  the  first  tests  for  Pennsylvania  children,  whereas 
some  of  the  scores  from  outside  the  state  were  those  of  second  or 
third  tests;  nevertheless,  after  making  due  allowances  for  this 
difference  it  seems  clear  that  all  of  the  facts  in  these  previous 
paragraphs — low  rank  as  to  efficiency,  low  scores,  low  standing  of 
pupils — go  to  establish  the  fact  that  the  public  schools  in  the  state 
of  Pennsylvania  did  not,  during  the  decade,  rank  favorably  as 
compared  with  public  schools  in  other  states,  more  particularly 
those  located  in  the  northern  and  the  western  parts  of  the  United 
States. 


tTaken  from  King's  "Status  of  the  Rural  Teacher  in  Pennsylvania,  United  States  Bulletin — 1921, 
No.  34." 


22 

TABLE  3. 

State,  General  and  Standard  Scores,  Courtis  Arithmetic  Test, 

March,  1918.' 


MEDIANS 

Addition 

Subtraction 

MULTI- 
TLirATlON 

Division 

Rate 

Ace. 

Rate 

Ace. 

Rate 

Ace. 

Rate 

Ace. 

Sixth  Grade 
Pennsylvania  Medians 

7.0 
6.9 
8.3 
8.5 
7.7 
9.8 
10 

8.7 
9.8 
9.5 

10.0 
9.2 

11.6 

12 

65 
65 
64 
67 
62 
73 
100 

75 
78 
67 
72 
69 
76 
100 

7.8 
8.8 
8.7 
9.7 
8.4 

10.3 

11 

10.6 
11.7 
10.9 
12.0 
11.2 
12.9 
13 

81 
82 
77 
83 
76 
85 
100 

83 
85 
82 
86 
86 
87 
100 

7.6 
8.1 
7.5 
8.6 
7.6 
9.1 
9 

10.0 
10.2 
9.9 
11.5 
10.7 
11.5 
11 

78 
74 
68 
76 
71 
78 
100 

82 
81 
74 
81 
81 
81 
100 

5.2 
6.4 
6.1 
7.0 
5.6 
8.2 
8 

8.1 
9.8 
9.7 

10.8 
8.6 

10.7 

11 

77 
82 

79 

83 

78 

87 

100 

Eighth  Grade 

Pennsylvania  Medians 

Kansas  Medians 

89 

88 

87 

91 

Minnesota  Medians 

89 
91 

100 

'Schoolmen's  Week  Proceedings  1918,  Pages  106-107. 

TABLE  4. 
Pennsylvania  Medians, Monroe  Silent  ReadingTests,  April,  1919. 


Sixth  Grade 

Eighth  Grade 

MEDIANS 

Rate 

Comprehension 

Rate 

Comprehension 

Pennsylvania,  March 

84 
92 

17.2 
21.0 

90 
108 

22.8 

Monroe  Standard,  May 

27.5 

-Schoolmen's  Week  Proceedings  1919,  Page  103. 

TABLE  5. 
Pennsylvania  Medians,  Monroe  Reasoning  Tests,  February,  1920.^ 


Sixth  Grade 

Eighth  Grade 

MEDIANS 

Correct 
Principle 

Correct 
Answer 

Correct 
Principle 

Correct 
Answer 

Penn-sylvania,  February  1920 

13.8 
15.5 

9.9 
10.2 

18.7 
16.8 

9  2 

Monroe  June  Standard  (Tentative) 

8.4 

'Schoolmen's  Week  Proceedings  1920,  Page  135. 

Beginnings  of  Upward  Movement. — Thus  while  this  decade 
marked  a  low  ebb  for  educational  affairs  in  the  state  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, there  were  at  the  same  time  certain  influences  working  in 
the  direction  of  the  up-building  of  the  schools.  Among  those  were 
the  passage  of  the  School  Code  of  1911  under  the  administration 
of  Governor  Stuart  which  gradually  introduced  reforms  in  our 


23 

school  administration.  The  annual  conferences  of  teachers  held 
by  the  Pennsylvania  State  Education  Association,  the  University 
of  Pittsburgh,  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  and  later  by  the 
State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction,  which  were  largely 
attended  by  the  school  people  of  the  state,  gave  information 
regarding  the  educational  conditions  in  the  state  and  in  the  United 
States  as  a  whole  and  suggested  means  for  improving  educational 
conditions  throughout  the  state.  The  facts  revealed  regarding  the 
illiteracy  among  the  Pennsylvania  boys  who  were  drafted  into  the 
army  carried  the  lesson  to  the  people  of  the  state  generally.  In 
addition  to  this  was  the  granting  of  votes  to  women  through 
an  amendment  to  the  United  States  Constitution,  which  imme- 
diately stimulated  interest  in  the  subject  of  education  among 
all  citizens.  Teachers  and  citizens  alike  became  more  active  in 
improving  conditions  throughout  the  state. 

Woodruff  Act — ^Edmonds  Act. — All  of  these  factors  brought 
about  the  passage  of  the  Woodruff  Act  in  1919.  The  appointment 
of  Thomas  E.  Finegan  as  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction 
later  in  the  same  year  introduced  a  vigorous  leader;  while  the 
passage,  und or  his  leadership,  of  the  Edmonds  Act  and  other  bills 
for  the  improvement  of  educational  conditions  introduced  a  num- 
ber of  important  changes  in  the  Legislature  of  1921.  These  Acts, 
taken  together  with  the  large  expansion  in  the  office  of  the  State 
Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  and  the  more  vigorous 
enforcement  by  the  State  Superintendent  of  laws,  most  of  which 
had  been  upon  the  statute  books  for  a  number  of  years,  but  not 
enforced,  and  the  greater  activity  of  his  office  in  its  efforts  to 
encourage  the  voluntary  introduction  of  new  measures  on  the  part 
of  Local  Boards  of  Education  in  order  to  increase  the  efficiency  of 
their  schools  have  produced  a  new  regime  in  education  in  this 
state.  Naturally  the  opposition  referred  to  earlier  in  this  study 
which  seems  to  exist  between  efficiency  and  local  control  was 
kindled  afresh. 

Purpose  of  This  Study. — It  is  the  function  of  this  study  to 
endeavor  to  evaluate  the  present  situation,  particularly  from  the 
standpoint  of  financial  support  of  the  schools.  This  is  a  practical 
question  of  immediate  importance  by  reason  of  the  fact  that 
apparently  the  income  of  the  state  is  not  adequate  to  meet  the 
demands  that  are  made  upon  it  under  the  existing  law.    A  con- 


24 

siderable  proportion— 26  percent— of  the  state  income  at  the 
present  time  is  going  to  the  support  of  the  elementary  and  secon- 
dary schools  controlled  by  the  local  school  districts  and  to  the 
support  of  the  normal  schools  and  higher  educational  institutions. 
Should  this  support  be  continued  in  its  present  form  and  extent? 
If  not,  what  modifications  are  desirable?  These  are  the  funda- 
mental questions  to  be  answered  by  this  study.  Collateral  ques- 
tions relative  to  control  will  naturally  arise  and  they  will  be  dealt 
with  in  their  proper  place,  but  only  in  so  far  as  it  is  necessary  in 
order  to  answer  these  major  questions. 

The  Wisdom  of  the  Financial  Policy  Embodied 
in  the  Edmonds  Act. 

The  Edmonds  Act,  together  with  its  predecessor,  the  Woodruff 
Act,  caused  a  considerable  increase  in  the  cost  of  public  schools 
of  the  state.  In  order  to  pass  upon  the  question  whether  this 
increased  cost  is  warranted  it  is  necessary  to  examine  several 
different  sorts  of  material.  Let  us  take,  in  the  first  place,  the  cost 
of  education  in  Pennsylvania  during  the  preceding  years  as  com- 
pared with  the  cost  of  public  education  in  the  United  States. 
Table  6  (see  page  25)  furnishes  the  data  relative  to  the  cost  per 
capita  of  average  daily  attendance  for  the  United  States  as  a  whole 
for  three  different  groups  of  states  and  for  seven  individual  states 
scattered  throughout  the  country.  It  will  be  seen  from  this  table, 
and  from  Diagram  1  (page  26)  which  illustrates  it,  that  the  cost 
for  the  year  1919-20  per  child  attending  was  lower  in  Pennsylvania 
than  in  the  United  States  as  a  whole,  and  was  also  lower  than  in 
any  of  the  groups  of  states  and  in  any  of  the  individual  states. 
The  state  has  occupied  this  low  position  ever  since  1880.  Pennsyl- 
vania has  been  a  low-cost  education  state  for  a  period  of  forty 
years.  This  fact  goes  to  show,  since  people  usually  get  about  the 
worth  of  their  money  in  education  as  in  other  commodities,  that 
it  was  desirable  in  Pennsylvania  to  increase  the  cost  of  education 
in  order  to  obtain  more  efficient  schools. 


25 


o 

t- t-u: 

«c 

t- (r>  00  o  OS  00  •»* 

COrHN 

tc 

o 

oeoo 

f_H 

- 

in  la  !D  «)  00 1>  t- 

t-c-oo 

00 

00 

t- u5  lo  00  m  N  ^ 

ooot- 

00 

Irt -^  lO  t-  r-(  i-(  Ifi 

MCOOO 

rH 

t- 

t-r-COONOOK 

OOdrH 

t- 

• 

■* -Oi  lO  lO  ;0  lO  IC 

Ti<io!a 

t£> 

tc 

00  N  O  •>*  00  US  O! 

ooioia 

t- 

r^ 

00 1- Nto  o  1-1  oc 

OOt-rH 

^^ 

lA 

O  1-H  N  00  t- CJ  »- 

PJCOO 

00 

u5 -"t  lO  Tf  ;o  lO  « 

lOkOl£ 

t- 

«» 

■»)" 

i-H  Tf  m  lo  OS  t' C3 

N«DM 

00 

r^ 

t- O  U5  .-1  lO  Tji  o- 

oocooc 

CJ 

« 

OONN 

o 

■01  CC  lO  r}!  «)  lO  «: 

■^U5-<1 

t- 

<«» 

N 

0»  O  lO  rji  lO  05  •- 

05C0O 

U5 

r^ 

o  «  00  cq  00  c- ic 

C-rHt- 

N 

rH 

oteiooiomoc 

moici 

lO 

■«Ji  CO  ■*  CO  to  ■*  IC 

TiiTiia 

t- 

<© 

O 

ouSi-iNO^e- 

eoooc 

l« 

00  00  ■*  o  M  m  tc 

coot- 

«o 

<J5 

Ot-ONNOt- 

CO«)tH 

t- 

t^l  C^l  CO  CT3  "^  "^  C^- 

CO  CO  CO 

Tl" 

O 

lo  t- •<)<  lo  ea  05  c^ 

SJOOON 

gujotn 

S?5 

NUSCONNSOC 

o. 

O  <0 -"f  t- 1>  t- -^ 

20500 

C-tHcoc] 

2" 

C-co 

N  r-i  P1 1-1  cj  N  e< 

^ 

o 

MOJinooinoo! 

OlrHCO 

o 

0>  a>  N  N  CO  lO  05 

lONO) 

oo 

05 

1*  CO  00  C£5  CO  OS  00 

toiat- 

05 

rH  rH  iH  iH  N  i-l  r- 

rHNi- 

N 

P 

o  t- lo  CO  t- N  t> 

t-rHO 

in 

00  00  t- lO  Tl<  r-l  O 

CO  1/5  to 

O) 

O  r-l -*  CO  rH  to  in 

COWIO 

to 

(M 

6» 

t- 

o 

t- 

w 

H 

Eh 

< 

m 

Eh 

* 

^ 

r* 

W 

.9    S    m    m   Cj 

sylvan 
;d  Stat 
.  State 
.  State 
ern    St 
York. 

3 

'c 

c 

c 
a 

'c 

< 

2 

1 

2 

c 

c 

0 

a] 
0 

PQ 
< 


o 

< 
1-3 

o 

Eh 
O 

o 

<: 

<; 
o 
« 

H 
« 

H 

s 

Ph 


rHOOO<CNOOeOOOt-U5rieO 

iOT)<oNC-Ne^oocoooiOT»' 
t-t-aiO(MOr-io>mo5cor-i 

««•  rHrH        rH  rH  rH 


0«DW0005r-IC<IOOC^r-HC-^ 
aiNmir-OO^OOmcOrHrHOT 

t-t-c-a>oc~o>o>'*oocoo 


■^ooNNcooitiSoi'^mmco 
e<ic^rHt-m(Doooooococoo» 

t>«>t-t-o>«3oot-eot-Oi<r 


StDMOr-lOTjitO 

«Dmto<cootooot-^c-c-o» 


■^U50»C0N000»!?>C0i»00O 
e000005N01000rHTtU5eO 

mmmmootot^mcocxooj 


N'^COC^t-mMUONOOlCCD 
NtOmiONtDt-COClOOtO 


mTfusmt-intomc^vOLOt^ 


rH-^OSt-rHOr-lrHOCOrHm 

■"joooxNc^oinc^cooooto 


coojeocOT)iTfcocow<j>co-»J' 


^■*t0r-(t-C<Ir-(0)C0O-*0» 

■«fNC~oocoo5cooooot-eoc<i 
NMNNCONe^WrHcOeO-V 


r-lrHr-lC<I(NNrHNrHNNCO 


coinoOTfint-ooNcocoocc 

COtr-eOi-lrHrH-^lOint-t-OJ 


NrH|M<NN(MWNr-ICOC<lW 


•O  3 


26 


TJBllOQ 


SJeaX 


27 

Comparative  Costs. — Table  No.  7  (page  25)  giving  the  expen- 
diture per  capita  of  total  population  during  the  period  1870-1920, 
shows  the  efforts  made  to  support  public  education  in  Pennsylvania 
in  comparison  with  efforts  made  in  other  states.  This  table  and  the 
accompanying  diagram,  Diagram  2  (page  28),  shows  Pennsylvania 
to  have  a  low  position.  This  means  that,  taking  man  for  man  in 
Pennsylvania  as  compared  with  citizens  of  other  states,  they  have 
not,  during  these  fifty  years,  put  so  much  money  into  education. 
This  would  indicate  that  in  order  for  Pennsylvania  to  make  its 
schools  equally  efficient  with  those  of  other  states  it  is  necessary 
that  its  expenditures  be  increased. 

Similar  data  giving  expenditures  per  capita  of  average  daily 
attendance  for  teachers'  salaries  and  expenditure  per  capita  of 
school  population  shows  Pennsylvania  in  the  same  relative  posi- 
tion.    They  are  not  included  here  because  of  lack  of  space. 

The  conclusion  therefore  is,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  money 
put  into  the  schools  per  pupil  attending  and  per  inhabitant,  that 
increasing  the  expenditures  for  Pennsylvania  schools  was  a  wise 
policy;  that  it  was,  in  fact,  an  absolute  necessity. 

Comparative  Tax  Rates. — Another  type  of  material  that  may 
be  used  to  throw  light  upon  the  question  is  a  comparison  of  the 
tax  rates  paid  in  the  different  states  for  the  support  of  schools. 
Data  under  this  head  is  available,  but  is  not  so  complete.  Com- 
paring true  tax  rates  in  which  the  differences  of  rates  of  assessment 
have  been  eliminated  for  the  year  1915,  it  is  clear  that  the  tax 
rates  for  schools  in  Pennsylvania  cities  of  from  30,000  to  100,000 
population  were  lower  as  compared  with  cities  generally.  Of 
thirteen  Pennsylvania  cities  only  five  had  a  true  tax  rate  as  high 
as  the  median  of  eighty-four  cities.  These  cities  compare  more 
favorably  as  regards  taxation  for  schools  than  for  taxation  for  all 
local  purposes  including  schools.  In  this  case  only  two  cities  of 
the  thirteen  had  a  true  tax  rate  above  the  median.  Data  for  the 
year  1921  are  not  complete.  Such  as  they  are,  however,  they 
show  that  Pennsylvania  cities  occupy  a  relatively  low  position 
as  regards  the  tax  rate  for  cities.* 

A  comparison  of  the  true  tax  rates  in  rural  school  districts  in 
Pennsylvania  and  the  state  of  New  York  for  the  year  1919  shows 
that  their  median  tax  rates  are  approximately  the  same — 5.7  mills 

•See  Updegraff,  Schoolmen's  Week  Proceedings,  1917,  pp.  101-115. 


28 


8 

s 

5 

!5 

8 

^      S 
^      § 

o 
o 

00 

§ 

<3 

^ 

8 

IN 

o 

Q 

8 

— \ 

\: 

■^ 

■s   ••. 

'••).;- 

A 

< 

""• 

\     ■• 

Ms 

^\ 

\ 

\         ^ 

^.  \ 

'^'V^ 

\ 

•t 

^^^ 

\^ 

\ 

\V- 

\\ 

\ 

'»  \  '• 

' 

A      A 

^\ 

'A 

\ 

,'\\- 

:  i 

x\ 

• 

c 

U 

l\ 

'. 

4 

n^ 

\°; 

*  \ 

i ', 

\ 

'\  \ 

'A;\ 

( 

•'V 

i  \ 
>  • 

■".  \ ' 

\ 

< 

.*     «  * 

• 

'  i    •  ; 

i 

^ 

■    •    1   '    ;    •    ■ 
<o  X.  ->  -"  ^  2  5 

:    :  : 

h 

1 

J 

.- 

/ 

tyfrv^ 

^ 

g 

8 

i 

^ 

§ 

8 

^ 
n 

8 

1 

1 

29 

and  5.4  mills  respectively.  A  comparison  of  the  true  tax  rates  for 
school  purposes  for  cities  of  the  two  states  for  the  same  year  do 
not  show  so  favorably  for  the  state  of  Pennsylvania.  The  true 
tax  rate  for  cities  in  Pennsylvania  for  that  year  was  6.4  mills  while 
in  the  state  of  New  York  it  was  7.9  mills. 

These  data  go  to  show  that  from  the  standpoint  of  the  cost  per 
$100  of  taxable  property,  an  increase  in  the  cost  of  schools  of 
Pennsylvania  would  not  cause  a  greater  burden  upon  the  people 
than  that  borne  by  people  in  other  states. 

Comparative  data  for  the  cost  of  schools  for  the  year  1921-22, 
the  first  year  of  the  operation  of  the  Edmonds  Act,  are  available 
to  a  very  small  extent.  We  know,  however,  that  the  median  true 
tax  rate  for  schools  in  the  cities  of  Pennsylvania  for  the  year  1922 
was  9.2  mills,  1.3  mills  more  than  the  median  tax  rate  for  cities 
in  the  state  of  New  York  for  the  year  1919.  Inasmuch  as  it  is 
probable  that  the  tax  rate  of  the  cities  in  the  state  of  New  York 
advanced  during  this  three-year  period  as  much  or  more  than  this 
amount,  it  would  not  seem  as  though  the  local  city  tax  rates  caused 
by  the  administration  of  the  Edmonds  Act  were  unreasonably 
high.  Taking  into  account,  therefore,  the  relative  low  position 
of  Pennsylvania  cities  as  compared  with  other  cities  in  the  United 
States  in  previous  years  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  schools  of  the 
state  are  an  undue  burden  upon  the  city  tax-payers. 

Comparative  Salaries  of  Teachers  in  City  Schools. — There 
is  one  sort  of  data  that  seems  fairly  complete  for  the  year  1922. 
It  is  that  of  teachers'  salaries  in  all  classes  of  districts  in  the  various 
states  of  the  Union.  The  Research  Department  of  the  National 
Education  Association  has  received  data  from  several  hundred 
districts  of  all  sizes  giving  the  exact  salaries  paid  to  all  teachers. 
The  median  salaries  have  been  computed  for  the  individual  cities, 
for  the  states  as  wholes  and  for  cities  arranged  in  groups.  The 
median  salaries  paid  in  each  state,  to  all  the  teachers  serving  in 
the  cities  in  each  group  in  elementary  teaching  positions,  show 
Pennsylvania  salaries  to  rank  as  follows: 


30 

Elementary  Teachers  United         Pennsyl-      Rank  of 

in  Cities  States  vania  State 

100,000  and  over $1,848  $1,966  3 

25,000  to  100.000 1,379  1,244  24 

10,000  to  25,000 1,241  1,130  28 

2,500  to  10,000 1,097  1,029  24 

Villages  and  towns,  3  or  more  teachers .  1,010  992  28 

Country  schools,  3  or  more  teachers . .  .      885  881  25 

Country  schools,  2  teachers 877  735  30 

Country  schools,  1  teacher 774  655  34 

Consolidated  schools 987  831  33 

This  data  proves  that  salaries  paid  elementary  teachers  under 
the  Edmonds  Act  are  near  or  below  the  average  in  all  classes  of 
cities  except  the  first  class,  in  which  group  salaries  are  higher. 
Should  the  comparison  be  confined  to  the  states  in  the  northern 
half  of  the  country,  Pennsylvania  would  rank  among  the  lowest 
states.  Since  such  a  comparison  is  a  fair  one  it  would  seem  that 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  standard  for  salaries  set  up  in  the 
Edmonds  Act,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  there  will  be  increases 
in  later  years  under  this  head,  are  warranted  and  should  be 
maintained. 

Current  Expenses  in  Cities  Compared. 

Such  data  as  is  available  relative  to  cost  of  education  in  cities 
in  1921-22  is  presented  in  Table  8.  (See  page  31.)  These  data 
have  been  furnished  by  the  State  Superintendents  in  the  various 
states  in  response  to  a  request  of  this  Committee. 

The  cities  in  the  table  are  arranged  according  to  population  and 
in  such  a  way  as  to  place  cities  of  approximately  the  same  popula- 
tion on  the  same  horizontal  line.  This  shows  that  the  cost  of 
education  per  pupil  is  not  on  the  whole  so  high  in  Pennsylvania 
cities  as  in  those  of  New  York,  Illinois,  Connecticut  and  Massa- 
chusetts. 


31 


z 

o 

H 

< 

H-l 

P 

(L, 

o 

Ph 

Is* 

o 

tn 

r/5 

-j; 

m 

z 

o 

• 

IM 

w 

(M 

u 

05 

z 

T-l 

<; 

r-l 

u 

fM 

z 

O 

» 

t-l 

H 

H 

rn 

<5 

B 

H 

^ 

<i: 

i-l 

H 

<< 

00 

Q 

M 

Ui 

w 

o 

rn 

■rt* 

« 

(^ 

<: 

W 

> 

> 

<J 

z 

tf 

rn 

W 

Q 

CL, 

Z 

r/J 

< 

W 

O! 

r/3 

U) 

Z 

o 

W 

« 

H 

H 

Z 
i-t 

H 

Z 

W 

CE5 

« 

t) 

U 

fc 

O 

Z 

o 

73 

% 

Ph 

S 

o 

U 

CQ 

a 
m 

K 
O 
< 

< 

S 

Current 
expense 

per 
average 
dally 
atten- 
dance 

$80.53 

99.61 

118.21 

69.02 
74.33 
74.40 

00  r»  00 

■*  »»•  00 

« CO  oi 

tOQO  -O 

Popu- 
lation 
in  thou- 
sands 

00         05         O)         CB-*  « 

■v      t-      M      CO  cn  05 
t«      rt      l-l 

^-  <c  CO 

00 

O 

Boston 

Worcester .  . . 

Springfield. . . 

Lynn 

Lawrence 

Somervllle. . . 

o 

g 

H 
O 

o 

Current 
expense 

per 
average 
daily 
atten- 
dance 

01  00 

w  <-< 

a>  to 

o> 
to 

Popu- 
lation 
in  thou- 
sands 

CO  00 

o> 

H 

ii 

cslH 

d 
1 

n 
1 

O 

Current 
expense 

per 
average 
daily 
atten- 
dance 

$  91.36 

73.55 
103.56 

89.09 

122.79 

85.74 
84.32 

80.86 

Popu- 
lation 
in  thou- 
sands 

to               to  lO               CO 
!>.               to  to               -^ 

CO  to  lO       o 
CO  CO  CO         CO 

03 

1 

East  St.  Louis. 
Rockford 

Decatur 

c 

t 

c 

< 

T3 
□ 

S          0. 

PS     S 

O 
>< 

Current 
expense 

per 
average 
dally 
atten- 
dance 

$121.86 
119.37 
79.49 

102.08 
114.34 
90.69 

85.32 
110.67 

98.44 
91.25 

77.41 
68.27 

Popu- 
lation 
in  thou- 
sands 

to  »o  —t            CO  o  -^ 
O  CS  t-              ^  O  Oi 

lO  (N  r-l                   «  rH 

00  Tl                            O  "5 

00  r-                   "5  -^ 

lO               CO 

CO               CO 

CO 

W 

1— < 

H 
O 

Buffalo 

Rochester 

Syracuse 

Albany 

Vnnkprq 

c! 

1- 

•g£ 

my 

s  : 

^  : 

"a 

Poughkeepsle. 
Amsterdam.. . 

CO 

u 

Current 
expense 

per 
average 
dally 
atten- 
dance 

$  72.89 
67.46 

70.39 

62.15 
101.21 

80.57 
65.21 
66.40 
82.79 

59.83 
6a.  92 
70.  SO 

174.63 

78.44 
59.32 

Popu- 
lation 
in  thou- 
sands 

1,823 
558 

137 

107 
102 

i«  CO  CO  b-         O  t»  "5 

t-  1^  t»  to      to  •*  •* 

to               CO  Ol 

m 

H 
O 

Philadelphia.. 
Pittsburgh.  .  . 

Scran  ton 

Reading 

i 

5 

Allentown.. . . 
Johnstown. . . 

Lancaster .... 

t 

c 

c 

i 

I 

3 

I 

! 

c 
c 

c 

e 

1 

32 

One  very  important  consideration  that  should  always  be  kept 
in  mind  in  connection  with  the  increase  in  the  cost  of  education 
is  that  most  of  this  increase  was  due  to  circumstances  outside  of 
the  control  of  school  superintendents  and  school  boards.  Doctor 
John  K.  Norton,  Director  of  the  Research  Department  of  the 
National  Education  Association,  has  brought  this  out  in  a  striking 
manner  in  a  recent  Bulletin  published  by  that  organization.^  The 
chart  which  represents  clearly  and  graphically  the  facts  is  printed 
herewith — Diagram  3  (page  33).  It  shows  that  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  the  cost  of  education  in  the  United  States  as  a  whole 
increased  seven  and  a  half  times  from  1890  to  1920,  only  8  percent 
of  this  increase  was  due  to  conditions  within  the  control  of  school 
boards  and  school  superintendents;  the  next  factor  causing  the 
increase  was  the  depreciation  of  the  dollar,  which  accounts  for 
70  percent  of  it;  the  remainder,  22  percent,  was  due  to  the  increase 
in  the  attendance. 

Wealth  of  Pennsylvania, — The  next  question  in  order  is 
whether  the  state  of  Pennsylvania  is  in  a  good  position,  from  the 
standpoint  of  her  wealth,  to  bear  the  costs  of  the  present  financial 
burden  for  education.  The  latest  governmental  investigation 
made  of  the  taxable  wealth  of  the  various  states  shows  that 
Pennsylvania  in  1912  ranked  nineteenth  in  the  true  valuation  per 
capita  of  general  property.  The  amount  of  general  property 
available  for  taxation  is  not,  however,  a  true  index  of  ability  of 
the  people  to  support  schools.  Possibly  the  best  index  is  fur- 
nished by  a  comparison  of  the  income  of  the  inhabitants  of  each 
of  the  states.  The  National  Bureau  of  Economic  Research  has 
recently  published  the  results  of  several  years'  study  in  this  field. 
This  shows  that  in  per  capita  income,  Pennsylvania  again  ranks 
nineteenth  with  an  income  of  $683,  the  standard  for  the  United 
States  being  $627.  The  list  of  states  having  a  larger  income  per 
capita  is  given  in  Table  No.  9  (page  34).  From  this  data  it  is 
clear  that  in  order  for  Pennsylvania  to  put  as  much  money  into 
her  schools  as  many  other  northern  states  she  will  have  to  impose 
higher  rates  of  taxation  both  upon  general  property  and  upon 
incomes  from  other  classes  of  property,  provided  such  property 
is  made  taxable. 


iFacta  on  the  Cost  of  Public  Education  and  What  They  Mean,  Bulletin   One  of  the   Research 
Department  of  the  National  Education  Association. 


33 


D 


Proportion  «r  Incrou*  OY«r  1690 
Chargoabli  to  looraaaoil  Ittioimoy  tt  Sohool 


Proportion  of  Inor 
Cnargoa&l*  to  Xnero 


Proportion  of  Inoroiso  Oror  1890 
CK«rg«abl«  to  Doproolation  of  tno  X>oll«r 


1636,040,991 


iMo.soe.ns^^l 


ovor  1690 
171,457,903 


iSfJiSo   / 

4285,743,719 


186,842,414 


♦82,280,73a 


1195,304,333 


tll<,620,S71 


Diagram  3. — An  Analysis  of  the  Increase  in  Expenditures 
FOR  Public  Education  by  Decades,  1890  to  1920. 


34 

TABLE  9. 
Income  per  Capita — 1919.' 

United  States $627 

1  New  York 874 

2  Nevada 850 

3  California 820 

4  Delaware 792 

5  Wyoming 789 

6  Massachusetts 788 

7  Washington 786 

8  Illinois 765 

9  New  Jersey 758 

10  Rhode  Island 720 

11  Connecticut 717 

12  Oregon 711 

13  Iowa 706 

14  Michigan 704 

15  Nebraska 702 

16  Ohio 689 

17  Maryland 689 

18  South  Dakota 685 

19  Pennsylvania 683 

'"Distribution  of  Income  by  States  in  1919" 
Oswald  W.  Knauth. 


It  remains  for  the  people  of  Pennsylvania  to  decide  whether 
they  will  prefer  to  tax  themselves  more  heavily  and  thus  have 
schools  among  the  very  best  of  the  entire  Union  or  to  have  their 
efficiency  determined  by  the  wealth  that  lies  back  of  the  schools. 
However,  in  so  far  as  the  present  Pennsylvania  standards  of  salaries 
are  concerned,  and  very  probably  of  total  expenses,  it  seems  clear 
that  they  cannot  be  higher  relatively  than  her  position  in  regard 
to  income.  In  fact  Pennsylvania's  rank  as  to  salaries  of  elemen- 
tary teachers  in  all  classes  of  schools  is  even  lower  than  her  wealth 
per  capita  of  population  in  1912  or  her  income  per  inhabitant 
in  1919. 

Thus,  from  every  point  of  view  it  seems  that  the  salaries  should 
be  at  least  as  high  as  those  established  by  the  Edmonds  Act,  and 
since  the  teachers'  salaries  consume  from  60  to  80  percent  of  the 
total  expenses  of  the  schools,  that  the  total  expense  of  schools 
should  not  be  reduced  below  their  present  level. 

Distribution  of  Costs  between  State  and  local  districts. — 
The  question  which  next  arises  is:  How  should  the  cost  of  schools 
be  distributed  between  the  state  and  local  districts?  The  practice 
of  Pennsylvania  as  compared  with  the  practices  of  other  states 
during  the  past  30  years  in  the  proportion  of  cost  borne  by  the 


35 

state  is  shown  in  Table  No.  10,  which  gives  the  percent  of 
school  revenue  derived  by  the  local  districts  from  the  state 
in  Pennsylvania  and  in  the  United  States  as  a  whole  and  in 
various  groups  of  states  and  seven  individual  states.  From  this 
table  it  will  be  seen  that  the  practice  is  quite  varied  and,  as  may 
be  inferred,  there  are  not  at  the  present  time  any  well-established 
standards  in  this  regard,  Pennsylvania's  rank  among  all  the 
states  in  the  Union  in  the  year  1919-20  was  twenty-seven,  which 
means  that  twenty-six  states  obtained  a  greater  percent  of  sup- 
port from  the  central  government  and  that  twenty- one  received 
a  less  proportion. 

TABLE  10. 
Percent  of  School  Revenue  Derived  from  State.^ 


STATES 


'99-'00 


'09-'10 


'11-'12 


'13-'14 


'17-'18 


'19-'20 


Pennsylvania. . 
United  States. . 
N.  A.  States .  . . 
N.  C.  States..., 
Western  States . 

New  York 

New  Jersey 


Ohio 

Massachusetts . 
Iowa 


California. 


10.59 

23.75 

17.11 

17.61 

29.40 

19.83 

62.34 

(1888) 

18.98 

3.35 

3.90 

51.64 


22.0 
20.3 
15.1 
14.8 
33.4 
10.9 
40.6 

(1898) 

15.2 

1.2 

1.4 

(1898) 
48.7 


15.6 
18.1 
12.3 
14.7 
20.4 
9.6 
17.6 

10.2 
2.0 
7.5 

28.1 


14.26 
19.41 
15.26 
13.79 
24.58 
9.19 
51.42 

16.91 
2.22 
7.14 

30.88 


10.78 
18.66 
13.37 
15.10 
25.35 
8.08 
46.84 

9.21 
1.93 
6.55 

27.68 


10.32 
17.82 
13.04 
13.84 
23.99 
8.18 
44.08 

9.66 
1.76 
8.00 


9.6 
16.8 
17.4 
13.2 
20.3 

9.5 
45.3 

8.2 
3.7 
2.2 

22.3 


15.9 

16.8 

16.85 

26.22 

16.60 

12.1 

35.6 

7.3 

12.3 

1.5 

20.4 


'Data  furnished  by  United  States  Bureau  of  Education  Reports. 


Another  standard  which  will  assist  in  reaching  a  judgment  is 
furnished  by  a  consideration  of  the  percent  of  the  total  expenses 
of  state  government  that  goes  to  the  support  of  education.  In  this 
respect  Pennsylvania  ranked  39th  in  the  year  1918-19  as  may  be 
observed  from  Table  11  (see  page  36).  Should  the  percentage  of 
expenditures  in  other  states  have  remained  the  same  in  1922  as  in 
1919,  Pennsylvania  with  her  $36,000,000  appropriation  for  educa- 
tion would  still  have  a  rank  not  higher  than  the  30th.  There  were 
in  1918-19  only  9  states  giving  a  less  proportion.  In  the  amount 
per  capita  of  population  given  by  the  state  or  central  government 


36 

to  the  support  of  schools,  Pennsylvania  in  the  same  year  ranked 
35th  as  is  shown  in  Table  12.  In  the  percentage  of  total  revenue 
of  local  districts  received  from  the  state,  Pennsylvania  ranked 
twenty-sixth,  as  may  be  seen  from  Table  13.  Her  present  rank  even 
with  the  larger  appropriation  is  probably  no  higher.  In  so  far  as 
such  data  as  these  furnish  a  standard  it  would  seem  that  Penn- 
sylvania took  a  normal  step  forward  in  increasing  the  amount  of 
her  appropriation  for  education  and  that  she  might  properly  still 
further  increase  her  state  appropriation  for  education. 

TABLE  11. 

States  Which  Had  in  1918-19  a  Higher  Percentage 

OF  Expenditures  of  State  Government  for 

Schools  Than  Pennsylvania.' 

Percent 
United  States 33.8 

1  Utah 57 . 5 

2  North  Dakota 54.2 

3  Te-ias 53.2 

4  New  Mexico 51.0 

5  Mississippi 50 . 8 

6  New  Jersey 49.9 

7  Georgia 49.2 

8  Delaware 48.7 

9  South  DakoU 46.2 

10  California 45.0 

1 1  Alabama 43 . 7 

12  Arizona 43.6 

13  Nevada 43.5 

14  Nebraska 43.3 

15  Wisconsin 42.6 

16  Michigan 42.3 

17  Washington 42.4 

18  Kansas 42.4 

19  Kentucky 41.7 

20  Virginia 40.5 

21  Indiana 40.0 

22  Wyoming 38.4 

23  Minnesota 38.3 

24  Arkansas 37.9 

25  West  Virginia 37. 1 

26  Idaho 35.8 

27  Montana 35.2 

28  Maine 34.6 

29  North  Carolina 34.3 

30  South  Carolina     34 . 1 

31  Oregon 33.0 

32  Missouri 31.7 

33  Illinois \ 31.3 

34  Tennessee 31.0 

35  Oklahoma SO. 9 

36  Louisiana 29.9 

37  Colorado 29  5 

38  Ohio '.'.'.['.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.['.'.'.['.'.   29.9 

39  Pennsylvania 26.8 


'Bureau  of  Census.  Financial  Statistics  of  States,  1919.  p.  : 


37 

TABLE  12. 

States  Which  Had  in  1918-1919  Higher  Expenses  of  State 

Government  per  Capita  for  Schools  than 

Pennsylvania.* 

United  States $1.74 

1  Arizona 5 .  46 

2  Utah 5.13 

3  Nevada 4 .  54 

4  New  Jersey 4 .  04 

5  Minnesota 3 .  62 

6  Wyoming 3.55 

7  California 3.49 

8  Michigan 3.42 

9  Montana 3.19 

10  North  Dakota 3.19 

11  Washington 3.00 

12  Maine 2.98 

13  Texas 2.86 

14  Wisconsin 2 .  85 

15  New  Mexico 2 .  77 

16  South  Dakota 2.77 

17  Delaware 2.63 

18  Idaho 2.29 

19  Vermont 2.25 

20  Kentucky 1 .  93 

21  Nebraska 1.91 

22  Indiana 1 .  89 

23  Colorado 1.75 

24  Virginia 1 .  72 

25  Maryland 1 .  68 

26  Oregon 1 .  67 

27  Kansas 1.63 

28  New  Hampshire 1.41 

29  Mississiopi 1 .  40 

30  Connecticut 1.37 

31  Alabama 1.36 

32  Missouri 1.34 

33  Georgia 1 .  30 

34  Iowa 1.29 

35  Pennsylvania 1 .25 

^U.  S.  Bureau  of  Census.  Financial  Statistics  of  States,  1919,  p.  87. 


TABLE  13. 

Percentage  of  Total  Revenue  Receipts  of  Local  Districts 

Coming  From  the  State,  1919-20.^ 

1  Texas 54.0 

2  Mississippi 52 . 1 

3  Alabama 51 .3 

4  District  of  Columbia 49.6 

5  Georgia 43 . 5 

6  Maryland 41.6 

7  Kentucky 37.1 

8  Virginia 36.7 

9  Maine 35.6 

10  New  Jersey 35.6 

n  Delaware 35.3 

12  Vermont 33.1 

13  Utah 31.5 

14  North  Carolina 30.1 

15  Nevada 26.6 

1 6  Louisiana 24.5 

17  Wyoming 24.3 

18  Arkansas 23.7 

19  California 20.4 

20  Minnesota 19.5 

21  Arizona 18.7 

22  Washington 18.1 

23  Tennessee 17.8 

24  New  Mexico 17.6 

25  Michigan 17.1 

26  Pennsylvania 15.9 

^Furnished  by  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Education. 


9h 


38 

Appropriations. — Summing  up  the  inferences  derived  from 
the  data  presented  to  test  out  the  wisdom  of  expenditures  required 
by  the  Edmonds  Act  it  may  be  said  that  the  expenses  of  schools 
required  by  it  are  near  the  norm  for  the  United  States  as  a  whole 
but  below  the  norm  for  the  northern  states;  that  the  local  tax 
rates  required  by  it  are  probably  no  higher  than  the  average;  that 
the  amounts  of  money  granted  by  the  state  when  measured  both 
as  to  percent  of  total  expenses  and  by  the  cost  per  capita  are  near 
the  norm,  and  that  in  the  appropriation  of  total  expenses  going  to 
the  support  of  schools  she  is  below  the  average. 

Taken  all  in  all,  therefore,  the  practice  of  other  states  in  the 
Union  justifies  an  increase  in  the  state  appropriations  for  educa- 
tion rather  than  an  increase  in  the  local  tax.  However,  increases 
in  the  latter  may  still  be  made  without  burdening  the  people 
unduly. 

Present  Distribution  of  State  Aid  to  School  Districts. 

The  present  system  of  state  aid  to  local  districts  is  contained  in 
the  Edmonds  Act.  By  reason  of  that  fact  the  system  of  state  aid 
has  become  closely  identified  in  the  minds  of  many  people  with 
the  scheme  of  salary  schedules  and  with  the  plan  for  gradually 
increasing  the  qualifications  of  teachers  which  are  also  embodied 
therein.  As  a  matter  of  fact  they  are  not  interdependent.  Although 
closely  related,  any  one  of  these  features  may  be  changed  without 
altering  the  others.  It  is  important  that  this  truth  be  kept  in 
mind  in  the  further  consideration  of  the  state's  educational 
finances,  viz.,  subsidies  and  standards  are  closely  connected  in  the 
same  relationship  as  cause  and  effect,  but  they  are  not  parts  of  an 
organic  whole. 

The  field  of  this  inquiry  does  not  cover  the  careful  study  of  the 
structure  of  the  salary  schedules  but  rather  only  the  amounts  of 
money  they  involve;  neither  does  it  include  the  standards  for  the 
qualifications  of  teachers.  It  is  believed,  however,  that  these 
features  of  the  Edmonds  Act,  forming  as  they  do,  part  of  a  broad 
statesman-like  plan  for  the  gradual  improvement  of  instruction  in 
the  schools,  stamp  it  as  one  of  the  most  worthy  pieces  of  educa- 
tional legislation  in  the  history  of  the  Commonwealth.  These 
standards  should  be  maintained  against  any  effort  which  directly 
or  indirectly  may  have  the  effect  of  lowering  them. 


39 

Method  of  Distribution  Under  the  Edmonds  Act. 

Under  the  Edmonds  Act  first  class  districts  receive  for  each 
teacher,  supervisor  and  principal  and  any  other  members  of  the 
teaching  and  supervisory  staff  in  day  schools  25  percent  of  the 
annual  minimum  salary  ($1,200  or  $300  per  person)  established 
for  elementary  teachers  for  that  class  of  district.  Second  and  third 
class  districts  receive  35  percent  of  the  minimum  standard  salary 
($1,000  or  $350  per  person)  adopted  for  those  classes  of  districts. 
In  fourth  class  districts  the  subsidy  amounts  to  50  percent  of  the 
minimum  salaries,  which  are  $100  per  month  for  elementary 
teachers  with  Normal  School  certificates  or  equivalent,  and  $130 
per  month  for  high  school  teachers  with  Normal  School  certifi- 
cates or  equivalent.  Grants  for  teachers  holding  lower  grades  of 
certificates  are  based  in  all  districts  upon  the  salary  of  $85  per 
month  for  teachers  with  Partial  certificates  and  $75  per  month  for 
teachers  with  Emergency  certificates. 

This  system  of  grants  established  in  this  Act  represents  an 
advance  over  previous  Pennsylvania  legislation  of  this  character. 
It  was  the  best  plan  of  distribution  obtainable  at  the  time  of  its 
passage  and  the  author  of  this  chapter  gave  it  his  support.  Its 
advantages  will  be  brought  out  in  the  course  of  the  further  treat- 
ment of  this  study,  certain  of  which  are  as  follows: 

Advantages — 

1.  Longer  School  Terms. — It  encourages  the  lengthening  of 
the  school  term  in  fourth  class  districts.  It  is  in  this  class 
of  districts  that  practically  all  schools  of  less  than  9 
months'  terms  are  to  be  found. 

2.  Better  Teachers. — It  rewards  school  districts  for  employ- 
ing teachers  of  superior  qualifications  in  so  far  as  such 
qualifications  can  be  determined  by  the  type  of  certificate 
held.  This  is  accomplished  by  giving  larger  quotas  for 
teachers  holding  higher  certificates.  This  does  not  apply, 
however,  to  certificates  higher  than  that  of  the  Normal 
School  certificate  except  in  the  case  of  the  High  School 
teacher  certificate  in  fourth  class  districts. 

3.  Easy  Budgeting. — It  promotes  easy  budgeting  both  upon 
the  part  of  the  local  district  and  the  state  government. 
This  is  because  its  terms  are  easily  understood  and  the 
computations  required  are  of  the  simplest  sort. 


40 

4.  State  Appropriation. — It  begins  to  recognize  the  prin- 
ciple that  a  larger  proportion  of  teachers'  salaries  should 
be  paid  by  the  state  to  the  poorer  districts  than  to  the 
wealthier  districts.  How  far  this  principle  is  followed  in 
reality  will  be  indicated  when  a  consideration  of  the  results 
of  the  actual  operation  of  the  law  is  reached. 

Disadvantages — 

Notwithstanding  these  advantages  and  the  improvements  it  has 
introduced  over  previous  plans  followed  in  this  state,  the  plan  has 
certain  disadvantages  which  prevent  the  realization  of  the  higher 
efficiency  which  it  is  possible  for  a  system  of  state  aid  to  produce. 
These  disadvantages  will  be  pointed  out  more  clearly  in  the  more 
detailed  study  of  the  operation  of  the  plan  as  it  is  presented  later, 
but  certain  of  the  most  important  points  may  be  indicated  here: 

1.  Incorrect  Distribution  of  Appropriation.— The  wealthy 
districts  receive  too  much  and  the  poor  districts  too 
little  within  each  class  of  district. 

2.  Unequal  Salary  Grants. — Third  class  districts  are  much 
poorer,  as  a  group,  than  second  class  districts,  yet  they 
receive  the  same  grants  of  $350  per  teacher. 

3.  Insufficient  Encouragement. — It  fails  to  stimulate 
local  districts  to  bring  their  schools  up  to  the  highest 
standard  and  to  penalize  them  whenever  they  seek  to 
lower  efficiency,  which  end  might  be  accomplished  by 
taking  into  account  the  amount  of  the  tax  rate  in  distribu- 
tion of  aid. 

4.  Limited  Special  Aid. — The  number  of  forms  of  Special 
Aid  is  limited. 

5.  Increments  in  Salary. — State  aid  does  not  cover  the 
increments  in  salary  above  the  initial  salary. 

6.  Fixed  Salary  Schedule. — The  Act  fixes  minimum  salaries 
for  local  communities  including  increments  over  a  period 
of  years.  At  the  present  time  in  Pennsylvania  this  should 
not  be  considered  a  disadvantage.  The  plan  is  not  con- 
sistent, however,  in  that  the  increments  are  not  pre- 
scribed for  fourth  class  districts  and  extend  over  a  short 
period  only  in  third  class  districts. 

Recommendations  Provided  the  Present  System  of 
Aid  Is  Maintained — 

In  order  to  promote  the  highest  efficiency  in  the  local  school 


41 

districts  it  would  be  advisable,  in  case  the  present  system  of  aid 
be  retained,  to  remedy  the  deficiencies  pointed  out  above  by: 

(a)  Establishment  of  state-wide  minimum  salary  schedule  for 
fourth  class  districts  and  extension  of  the  increments 
already  fixed  for  third  class  districts. 

(b)  By  increasing  the  allotment  to  third  class  districts  from 
35  percent  to  40  percent. 

(c)  By  having  state  aid  apply  to  the  increments  in  salary 
above  the  initial  salary,  at  the  same  time  diminishing  the 
percentages  of  the  grants  so  that  total  appropriations 
from  the  state  will  not  be  increased  by  such  action. 

It  is  believed,  however,  that  the  best  interests  of  the  schools  of 
the  state  would  be  served  if  a  plan  for  state  aid  were  adopted 
which  would  stop  the  inefficient  use  of  money  involved  in  giving 
wealthy  districts  as  much  as  poor  districts,  and  those  which  levy 
a  low  tax  as  much  as  those  that  levy  a  high  tax  within  the  various 
district  groups.  A  better  plan  would  be  that  which  would  equalize 
educational  conditions  between  districts  and  also  stimulate  each 
district  to  its  best  efforts.  Any  plan  which  would  realize  these 
ends  would  assist  much  more  effectively  in  achieving  the  objects 
implied  in  the  Edmonds  Act  than  the  scheme  for  state  aid  con- 
tained therein  or  in  the  improvement  of  this  Act  as  recommended 
above.  Such  a  plan  should  be  put  into  effect  at  the  earliest  possible 
time  without  sacrificing  the  present  standards  of  the  Act  relative 
to  teachers'  salaries  and  to  teacher  qualifications. 

Proposed  Modification  of  the  Edmonds  Act. 

It  is  believed  that  such  a  plan  has  been  found  for  the  better 
realization  of  the  objects  of  the  Edmonds  Act. 

This  plan  of  state  aid  is  composed  of  two  parts,  GENERAL  AID 
and  SPECIAL  AID.  By  General  Aid  is  meant  those  grants  that 
are  given  to  all  school  districts  of  the  state  irrespective  of  the 
kind  of  school  they  have  maintained.  Special  Aid  are  those 
grants  which  are  given  to  certain  districts  to  assist  in  support 
of  particular  projects  or  plans  that  they  have  undertaken. 

The  plan  proposed  for  General  Aid  may  be  called  The  Ability 
AND  Effort  Plan  since  it  responds  closely  and  immediately  to 
any  change  in  the  local  districts  in  their  ability  to  support  their 
schools  or  in  the  effort  which  they  make  by  putting  more  or  less 


42 

money  into  their  schools.  It  may  be  based  either  upon  total 
expenses  or  upon  teachers'  salaries  alone,  excluding  all  other 
expenses.  It  has  no  reference  whatever  to  expenditures  for  capital 
outlays,  such  as  new  buildings  or  permanent  improvements  or  for 
debt  service  such  as  is  included  in  the  payment  of  bonds  and 
interest.  It  is  based  upon  the  teacher  quota  as  in  the  Edmonds 
Act,  but  the  amount  of  the  quota  is  much  more  variable. 

The  ability  of  a  school  district  to  support  schools  depends  upon 
the  amount  of  taxable  wealth  it  has.  Districts  vary  greatly  in 
this  respect.  But  before  they  can  be  compared  it  is  necessary  to 
eliminate  the  differences  among  them  in  the  size  of  their  schools. 
This  can  be  done  by  ascertaining  the  amount  of  property  taxable 
for  schools  back  of  each  teacher  employed.  It  is  necessary  also 
that  another  adjustment  be  made.  Different  districts  assess 
property  at  different  rates  of  assessment.  In  some  the  average 
rate  of  assessment  is  90  percent  of  its  true  value,  in  others  50 
percent,  in  others  at  25  percent.  Before  comparison  can  be  made 
it  is  necessary  to  ascertain  what  the  taxable  wealth  would  be  if 
assessed  at  100  percent  of  its  true  value.  This  amount  divided 
by  the  number  of  teachers  gives  the  true  valuation  per  teacher.  It 
furnishes  a  figure  from  which  all  the  disturbing  factors  are  re- 
moved and  so  they  may  be  safely  used  as  indicating  the  relative 
differences  in  the  school  districts  in  their  ability  to  support  schools. 
Diagram  4  shows  the  distribution  of  true  wealth  per  teacher  in 
each  of  the  various  classes  of  school  districts.  Every  first  and 
second  class  district  in  the  state  is  included ;  all  of  the  third  class 
districts  in  twelve  of  the  typical  counties  and  a  mechanical  sam- 
pling of  all  the  fourth  class  districts  in  the  same  twelve  coimties. 
It  is  believed  that  the  distribution  in  the  third  and  fourth  class 
districts  is  typical  of  the  state  as  a  whole. 


43 


THOUSANDS 
DOLLARS 



FOURTH  CLASS  DIST 

3^CLA55D1ST 

1^'&2^^CLAS5D1ST. 

UNDER   10 

3 

.«,» 

10-19 

3 

^M 

20-29 

3 

^M 

30-39 
40-49 

8 

7 
19 

60-69 
70-79 
80-89 
90-99 
100-109 

10 
13 

8 
10 

6 

4 
1 
1 

5 

■ 

110-119 
120-129 

8 
6 

5 
8 

1 

130-139 

3 

1^ 

2 

M 

140-149 
150-159 

7 
5 

3 

■^ 

I 

^ 

^^^ 

160-169 

1 

■ 

2 

■M 

1 

■ 

170-179 

3 

^M 

1 

M 

2 

mm 

180-189 

2 

1^ 

2 

^ 

2 

^ 

190-199 

2 

■^ 

2 

^ 

2 

^ 

200-209 

1 

. 

210-219 

2 

M. 

1 

■        . 

1 

■ 

220-229 

5 

■^BH 

230-239 

i 

■ 

2 

^ 

1 

■ 

240-249 

I 

■ 

I 

■ 

1 

■ 

250-259 

1 

■ 

] 

■ 

260-269 

3 

^M 

270-279 

2 

HH 

1 

■ 

280-289 

1 

■ 

1 

■ 

290-299 

1 

■ 

300-309 

2 

■■ 

1 

■ 

310-319 

2 

^ 

320-329 

1 

■ 

330-339 

J 

■ 

Z40-i^ei- 

13 

6 

2 

" 

Diagram  4.^ — Distribution  of   True  Valuation  Back  of  Each 

Teacher  in  Each  of  the  Various  Classes  of  School  Districts  in 

Pennsylvania,  1920-1921. 


44 

The  effort  which  a  district  makes  to  support  schools  is  deter- 
mined primarily  by  the  amount  of  money  it  spends  per  school  unit. 
As  the  "ability  and  effort"  plan  is  arranged,  the  differences  among 
the  districts  in  this  respect  are  accurately  measured  by  the  true 
tax  rates,  meaning  by  this  term  the  tax  that  a  district  would  levy 
if  its  property  were  assessed  at  100  percent  of  its  value.  The  dif- 
ferencesin true taxratesamongthe various  districts  underthe  present 
plan  of  state  aid  are  shown  in  Tables  18, 19  and  20  (pages  52  and  53). 

The  significance  of  these  terms  "ability"  and  "effort"  will  be 
still  further  developed  in  the  later  discussion  which  is  to  follow  the 
next  section  of  this  chapter. 

Principles  Underlying  Distribution  of  State  Aid 
in  School  Districts. 

Before  furnishing  a  statement  of  the  plans  for  General  Aid  and 
Special  Aid  it  is  desirable  to  give  the  principles  which  it  is  believed 
should  govern  the  granting  of  state  funds  to  local  school  districts 
and  to  evaluate  the  present  plan  in  the  light  of  those  principles. 
It  should  be  emphasized,  however,  that  this  evaluation  is  not  made 
in  criticism  of  the  present  plan  of  the  Edmonds  Act  but  to  point 
out  those  new  features  which  should  be  incorporated  into  the  plan 
which  would  better  promote  the  greatest  efficiency  in  local  school 
districts  through  the  bestowal  of  state  grants. 

1.  Equalization  of  Ability. — State  aid  should  be  dis- 
tributed in  such  a  way  as  to  insure  a  good  school  to  every 
community,  upon  a  reasonable  tax  rate.  This  may  be  done 
by  making  state  aid  dependent  upon  the  amount  of  prop- 
erty taxable  for  schools,  but  in  inverse  proportion. 

2.  Reward  for  Effort. — It  ought  also  to  stimulate  every 
school  district  to  have  better  schools,  thereby  constantly 
raising  the  standard  of  education  and  promoting  the  con- 
tinual progress  of  the  life  of  all  the  people  in  the  state. 
Adjusting  state  aid  to  the  number  of  mills  levied  within 
the  minimum  and  maximum  limits  prescribed  by  the  state 
will  assist  in  bringing  about  such  a  result  when  properly 
safeguarded. 

3.  Special  Aid. — It  also  ought  to  reward  any  school  that 
takes  a  new  and  approved  step  in  an  efficient  manner 
because  of  the  meritorious  action  that  such  a  step  indi- 
cates. Direct  grants  for  specific  accomplishments  will 
realize  this  end. 


45 

4.  Equality  of  Opportunity  for  All  Children. — It  should 
do  all  these  things,  not  only  to  protect  the  state  from 
ignorance  in  the  exercise  of  the  ballot  and  to  provide 
leaders,  but  also  to  promote  in  every  possible  way  the 
individual  welfare  of  every  person  in  the  state.  In  apply- 
ing this  principle  to  schools,  it  means  that  all  forms  of  aid 
should  be  utilized  in  such  manner  as  to  guarantee  for  each 
child  that  education  which  will  best  fit  him  for  life,  irre- 
spective of  the  particular  community  in  which  he  may 
happen  to  live. 

5.  Self-Determination  of  Action. — State  aid  should  be 
distributed  also  in  such  a  way  as  to  promote  the  efficient 
participation  of  citizens  in  the  exercise  of  citizenship.  The 
converse  of  this  proposition  is  that  it  should  not  be  so 
administered  as  to  promote  bureaucratic  control  in  either 
state,  county  or  local  education  offices.  This  can  be 
accomplished,  if  on  the  one  hand,  the  withholding  of 
funds  by  state  officers  is  exercised  only  in  proportion  to 
the  seriousness  of  the  shortcoming;  and  if  on  the  other 
hand,  right  action  on  the  part  of  local  districts  unfailingly 
meets  with  its  reward. 

The  facts  are  that,  in  a  fairly  large  number  of  communi- 
ties of  every  state,  we  need  a  change  in  attitude  on  the 
part  of  the  citizens  toward  the  schools.  These  com- 
munities can  frequently  be  led  to  change  their  ideas  and 
to  substitute  right  action  over  a  sufficiently  long  period 
of  years  to  bring  about  a  fundamental  change  in  their 
attitudes  toward  the  benefits  of  education.  That  which  a 
citizen  learns  through  the  operation  of  his  own  action 
becomes  established,  while  that  which  is  forced  upon  him 
against  his  will  he  opposes.  It  is,  therefore,  fundamental 
in  state  aid  that  we  leave  final  decisions,  provided  the 
minimum  and  maximum  standards  fixed  by  state  laws  are 
observed,  to  the  local  communities  and  allow  them  to 
choose  what  they  think  is  best.  Such  standards  should 
ordinarily,  however,  permit  of  considerable  range  for 
freedom  of  action.  If  this  is  done  we  have  stronger 
agencies  in  the  making  of  a  better  government  and  a  better 
society. 

6.  All  Districts  Encouraged. — ^If  a  system  of  state  aid  is 
working  properly,  not  only  are  the  most  advanced  districts 
encouraged  and  thus  the  entire  body  kept  moving,  but 
also  those  districts  which  are  lagging  behind  are  con- 
stantly stimulated  to  come  up  to  the  standards  that  have 
already  been  adopted  through  the  experience  of  the  more 
progressive. 


46 

Evaluation  of  Pennsylvania's  State  Aid. 

General  Aid. — The  granting  of  General  Aid  on  the  basis  of  the 
number  of  teachers  in  a  school  district  is  in  accordance  with  the 
best  practice.  The  differences  in  the  amounts  of  grants  made  to 
teachers  in  first,  second  and  third  class  districts  is  so  small,  how- 
ever, that  General  Aid  is  almost  a  negligible  factor  in  promoting 
efficiency  in  local  schools.  In  making  the  amount  of  the  grant  for 
each  teacher  in  fourth  class  districts  dependent  for  the  next  five 
years  upon  the  kind  of  certificate  held  and  the  length  of  term,  it 
offers  encouragement  to  local  districts  to  employ  better  teachers 
and  to  increase  the  number  of  months  of  schooling.  The  granting 
of  less  amounts  of  aid  for  teachers  with  lower  grade  certificates 
works,  however,  to  the  advantage  of  the  low  valuation  districts. 
These  districts  are  so  heavily  burdened  in  order  to  maintain  even 
the  cheapest  school  that  many  of  them  feel  it  necessary  to  employ 
the  lowest  salaried  teachers.   This  may  be  seen  from  Table  14. 


47 


TABLE  14. 

The  Relationship  Between  the  Average  Amount  per  Teacher 

Received  from  the  State  in  1922  and  the  True  Valuation 

IN  1921  PER  Teacher  for  Typical  Fourth  Class 

Districts  in   12  Typical  Counties. 


STATE  AID 

per  Teacher 

2 

1 

o 

00 

1 

1 
1 

o 

« 

1 
1 

1 

1 

M 

o 
1 

i 

2 
2 

c 

1 
1 
1 

2 

o 
1 

1 

2 
2 

o 
to 

CO 

i 
1 

n 

1 
1 

1 

1 

1 

2 
2 

■<)• 

1 

2 
2 
1 

2 

o 

i 
1 

1 

2 

o 

CO 

■* 

2 

1 

1 

s 

■* 

o 

U5 

o 

CO 

o 

o 

00 

i 

o 

U5 

2 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

1 

o 

o 

U5 
lO 

1 
1 

1 

I 

S  0,000-     9,999 
10,000-  19,999 
20,000-  29,999 
30,000-  39,999 
40,000-  49,999 
50,000-  59,999 
60,000-  69,999 
70,000-  79,999 
80,000-  89,999 
90,000-  99.999 

2 
4 

3 

8 

7 
12 

8 
12 

8 
11 

100,000-109,999 
110,000-119,999 
120,000-129,999 
130,000-139,999 
140,000-149,999 
150,000-159,999 
160,000-169,999 
170,000-179,999 
180,000-189,999 
190,000-199,999 
200,000-209,999 
210,000-219,999 
220,000-229,999 
230,000-239,999 
240,000-249,999 
250,000-259,999 
260,000-269,999 
270,000-279,999 
280,000-289,999 
290,000-299,999 
300,000-309,999 
330,000-339,999 
340,000-349,999 
380,000-389,999 
400,000-409,999 
410,000-419,999 
420,000-429,999 
430,000-439,999 
460,000-469,999 
480,000-489,999 
560,000-569,999 
670,000-679,999 

;: 

1 

4 

2 

1 
_5 

2 
_3 

i 
1 

9 

1 
2 
1 

11 

1 

1 

4 

1 

1 

1 

9 

1 

5 

6 

1 
1 

_7 

6 

1 
12 

6 

_5 

4 

_2 

_3 

1 

_2 

4 

2 
_3 

_3 

1 
2 
1 

1 

1 

_3 

J_ 

_2 

1 
1 

1 

2 

1 

1 
1 
1 

i 
11 

6 
8 
6 
3 

7 
4 
1 
3 
2 
2 
1 
2 
4 
1 
1 
1 
3 
2 
1 
1 
2 
1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
2 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 

TOTAL   .  .  . 

1 

2 

150 

Median  Line  Valuation.  $100,000. 
Median  State  Aid.  $400. 


48 

This  table  shows  the  amounts  of  money,  for  each  teacher 
employed,  received  by  the  typical  fourth  class  districts  of  the  state 
included  in  previous  tables.  The  table  groups  these  districts  by 
the  amounts  of  their  true  valuations  per  teacher  in  dollars  and  then 
shows  for  each  group  the  distribution  of  the  amounts  of  the  grants 
received  from  the  state.  The  heavy  horizontal  line  divides  the 
districts  into  two  halves  from  the  standpoint  of  their  valuations, 
while  the  heavy  vertical  line  divides  them  into  two  equal  groups 
from  the  standpoint  of  amounts  of  money  received.  It  will  be 
noted  that  the  median  valuation  is  approximately  $100,000,  while 
the  median  grant  is  approximately  $400  per  teacher.  By  true 
valuation  of  property  is  meant  the  assessed  valuation  divided 
by  the  rate  of  assessment. 

The  significance  of  this  table  lies  in  the  distribution  of  the  state 
grants  per  teacher  among  the  districts  in  the  four  quarters  of  the 
table  made  by  these  lines.  In  the  low  valuation,  low  grant  quarter, 
there  are  41  cases,  while  in  the  low  valuation,  high  grant  quarter, 
there  are  34  cases.  Taking  the  lower  half  of  the  table  in  the  high 
valuation,  low  grant  quarter,  there  are  33  cases,  while  in  the  high 
valuation,  high  grant  quarter,  there  are  42  cases.  These  figures 
substantiate  the  truth  of  the  statement  that  under  the  operation 
of  the  present  plan  of  state  aid  in  fourth  class  districts,  the  low 
valuation  districts  as  a  group,  get  the  smallest  amounts,  while 
the  high  valuation  districts  get  the  largest  amounts.  This  is 
directly  opposite  to  what  should  exist  from  the  standpoint  of 
promoting  the  highest  efficiency  of  all  of  the  schools  of  the  state. 

This  effect  of  the  operation  of  the  plan  of  General  Aid  in  fourth 
class  districts  reveals  one  of  its  greatest  weaknesses.  State  aid 
should  promote  the  highest  efficiency  in  every  school  district.  This 
may  he  done,  if  in  the  first  place,  it  puts  all  of  the  school  districts 
upon  the  same  financial  basis,  or  at  least  the  districts  whose  property 
valuations  per  teacher  are  below  the  average  for  the  state  as  a  whole; 
and  if  in  the  second  place,  the  amount  of  state  aid  is  made  dependent 
upon  the  effort  made  by  local  districts  to  support  good  schools  as 
revealed  in  their  tax  rates. 

The  extent  to  which  the  present  plan  for  General  Aid  in  Pennsyl- 
vania satisfies  the  first  of  these  conditions  may  be  shown  from  Tables 
15,  16  and  17,  which  give  the  true  valuation  of  taxable  property  per 
teacher  in  representative  fourth  and  third  class  districts  and  in  all 
of  the  first  and  second  class  districts  of  the  state. 


49 


The  figure  used  as  the  rate  of  assessment  was  the  average 
of  the  three  figures  submitted  by  the  secretaries  during  the  last 
three  years,  while  the  valuation  used  were  those  for  the  year 
1920-21.  The  figure  obtained  by  dividing  the  true  valuation  by 
the  number  of  teachers  gives  the  true  valuation  per  teacher,  which 
when  obtained  for  the  various  school  districts  in  the  state  m.akes  it 
possible  to  compare  all  of  them  on  the  same  basis.  From  the  stand- 
point oj  their  ability  to  support  schools  these  figures  not  only  eliminate 
the  differences  in  the  rates  of  assessment  of  property,  but  also  the 
differences  in  the  sizes  of  the  school  districts. 

TABLE  15. 
True  Valuations  per  Teacher  in  Typical  Fourth  Class 
Districts  of  Twelve  Typical  Counties  for  1920-1921. 


True  Valuations 
Per  Teacher 

2 
S 

0 

^3 
O 

Q 

1 

c 
o 

5 

9> 
N 

a 
o 

o. 
S 
ca 

o 

z 

a 
> 

"3 

M 

o 

c 
o 

ft 
a 

< 
O 

$  0.000-  9,999 

1 

1 

1 
1 

1 
2 
2 

i 

3 

. .  .  . 

3 

10,000-  19,999 

3 

20,000-  29,999 

1 

1 
1 
1 

2 

3 

30,000-  39,999 

■  ■  2' 
3 
1 
3 
2 

.  .^. 

1 

1 

2 

1 
1 

8 

40,000-  49,999 

1 

1 
1 

7 

50,000-  59,999 

3 

4 
1 
2 
2 
1 
..  .^. 

1 

1 

12 

60,000-  69,999 

. .  .^. 

2 
2 
1 
3 

I 

10 

70,000-  79,999 

1 

2 

2 
1 

13 

80,000-  89,999 

1 

8 

90,000-  99,999 

1 

1 
1 

1 

10 

100,000-109,999 

1 

1 
3 
2 
2 
2 
2 

6 

110,000-119,999 

1 

1 

8 

120,000-129,999 

1 

"l' 

1 

6 

130,000-139,999 

3 

140,000-149,999 

1 
1 

.... 

7 

150,000-159,999 

5 

160,000-169,999 

1 

1 

170,000-179,999 

i 
1 

2 

3 

180,000-189,999 

2 

190,000-199,999 

1 

2 

200,000-209,999 

1 

210,000-219,999 

1 

2 

220,000-229,999 

1 

1 

5 

230,000-239,999 

1 

240,000-249,999 

1 

250,000-259,999 

1 

1 

260,000-269,999 

1 

3 

270.000-279,999 

1 
1 
1 

1 

2 

280,000-289,999 

1 

290,000-299,999 

1 

300,000-309,999 

2 

2 

330,000-339,999 

1 

340,000-349,999 

2 
1 

2 

380,000-389,999 

1 

400,000-409,999 

1 

1 

410,000-419,999 

1 

1 

420,000-429,999 

2 

2 

4.30,000-439,999 

1 

1 

2 

460,000-469.999 

1 

1 

480,000-489,999 

1 

560.000-569,999 

1 

1 

670,000-679.999 

1 

1 

TOTAL 

15 

18 

13 

5 

6 

21 

16 

12 

6 

7 

14 

21 

154 

Median  True  Valuation.  $100,000. 


50 

Looking  at  Table  15  (page  49)  it  may  be  seen  that  in  a  number 
of  counties  the  amoimt  of  true  taxable  wealth  per  teacher  in  one 
district  is  twenty  times  as  great  as  in  that  of  another  district.  The 
tax  rate  that  is  necessary  to  pay  the  balance  of  the  teachers' 
salaries  over  and  above  the  state  grant  in  the  poorer  district  would 
have  to  be  considerably  higher  than  in  the  wealthier  district.  For 
example,  a  district  with  a  $200,000  true  valuation  could  pay  a 
Normal  School  graduate  $100  per  month  and  levy  a  two  mill  tax 
to  pay  the  difference,  while  a  district  with  $28,000  true  valuation 
would  have  to  levy  a  ten  mill  tax  to  pay  the  difference  in  the 
salary  of  $75  a  month  to  a  teacher  holding  the  lowest  grade  certi- 
ficate. The  first  of  these  districts  receives  far  more  than  is  neces- 
sary; the  second  not  enough.  Both  are  equally  entitled  to  the 
highest  grade  of  instruction  if  they  want  it.  State  aid  should  be  so 
adjusted  as  to  put  them  on  the  same  financial  basis  and  then  per- 
mit them  to  exercise  their  choice  as  to  the  kind  of  teachers  they 
wish  above  the  standards  prescribed  by  the  law.  No  child's  oppor- 
tunity in  life  should  be  narrowed  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  he 
happens  to  live  in  a  low  valuation  district. 

What  has  been  said  of  the  fourth  class  districts  applies  equally 
well  to  the  third  and  second  class  districts  as  may  be  seen  in  Tables 
16  and  17.  Take  two  cities,  one  having  a  valuation  of  $120,000 
per  teacher,  another  $240,000.  Suppose  both  of  these  receive 
$350  per  teacher  from  the  state  and  pay  out  on  an  average  $1550 
per  teacher.  The  first  named  would  find  it  necessary  to  levy  a  tax 
of  ten  mills,  while  the  second  would  have  to  levy  only  a  five  mill 
tax  to  pay  the  difference  between  the  total  expense  for  teaching 
and  the  amount  received  from  the  state  as  General  Aid. 

The  effect  of  this  lack  of  adaptation  of  the  system  of  state  aid 
to  the  ability  of  local  school  districts  to  support  schools  on  the 
basis  of  their  own  taxable  property  is  revealed  in  the  wide  diver- 
gence of  the  tax  rates.  Tables  18, 19  and  20  (pages  52  and  53)  give 
this  information  for  fourth,  third  and  second  and  first  class  dis- 
tricts respectively.  These  true  tax  rates,  as  they  are  called,  were 
obtained  by  multiplying  the  actual  tax  rates,  as  reported  by  the 
secretaries  of  school  boards,  by  the  average  of  the  rates  of  assess- 
ment for  the  past  three  years.  They  give  the  tax  that  would  be 
levied  in  each  of  the  school  districts  provided  property  was 
actually  assessed  at  its  full,  or  100  percent,  value. 


51 


TABLE  16. 

Distribution  of  True  Valuations  per  Teacher 

IN  ALL  Third  Class  Districts  in  Typical  Counties  1920-21.* 


True  Valuations 
per  Teacher 

2 

0) 

O 

T3 

O 

2 

Q 

a 

o 

a 

a> 

c 

5 

o 
a 
S 
d 

a 
o 

ti 
c 

o 

$  60,000-  69,999 
70,000-  79,999 

2 

2 

4 

1 

1 

1 

80,000-  89,999 

1 

90,000-  99,999 

100,000-109,999 

1 

2 

2 
3 

........ 

2 
2 
3 

1 

5 

110,000-119,999 

1 

5 

120,000-129,999 

1 

1 

8 

130,000-139,999 

2 

140,000-149,999 



1 

2 

3 

150,000-159,999 

160,000-169,999 

2 

2 

170,000-179,999 

1 

1 

180,000-189,999 

1 

2 

190,000-199,999 

1 

2 

200,000-209,999 

210,000-219,999 

1 

1 

220,000-229,999 

230,000-239,999 

1 

2 

240,000-249,999 

1 

250,000-259,999 

260,000-269,999 

270.000-279,999 

1 
2 

1 

6 

Total 

5 

2 

6 

1 

21 

3 

9 

47 

Median  True  Valuation.  $129,375. 

The  five  additional  counties  used  in  this  study  have  no  third  class  districts. 

TABLE  17. 

True  Valuations  per  Teacher  in  all  First  and 

Second  Class  Cities. 


True  Valuation 

1920-21 

per  Teacher 

$120,000-129,999 

1 

130,000-139,999 

140,000-149,999 

150,000-159,999 

1 

160,000-169,999 

1 

170,000-179,999 

2 

180,000-189,999 

2 

190,000-199,999 

2 

200,000-209,999 

210,000-219.999 

1 

220,000-229,999 

230,000-239,999 

1 

240,000-249,999 

1 

250,000-259,999 

1 

260,000-269,999 

270,000-279,999 

280,000-289,999 

1 

290,000-299,999 

300,000-309,999 

IX 

310,000-319,999 

2 

320,000-329,999 

1 

410,000-419,999 

1 

430,000-439,999 

IX 

Total             20 

Median  True  Valuation.  $230,000. 
XDenotes  First-Class  Cities. 


52 


TABLE  18. 

True  Tax  Rates  in  Fourth  Class  Districts  of  Twelve 
Typical  Counties — 1922. 


True 
Tax 
Rate 

(Mills) 

2 

V 

0 

1 

n 

u 

4-> 

o 

o 

"5 

« 

o 
c 
a 

c 

i 

►4 

c 
o 

a 
E 

o 

z 

a; 

c 

CIS 

> 
w 

be 
o 

c 
o 

be 
c 

"3 
o 
Eh 

3-  3  99 

4 
6 
3 
5 
2 

2 

1 
2 
1 
3 
1 

6 

4-  4  99 

7 

5-  5  99 

r 
1 

1 

1 

2 
3 

1 
2 

1 
...  .. 

1 

9 

6-  6.99 

7-  7  99 

1 

2 

1 
1 
1 

2 

15 
14 

8-  8  99 

2 

1 

"    l' 

1 

8 

9-  9  99 

1 
5 

4 

10-10  99 

2 

1 

1 

1 
1 
1 

1 

11 

11-11   99 

1 

4 

12-12  99 

2 

"l 

1 
1 

1 

1 
1 
2 

1 

3 

9 

13-13  99 

1 

3 

14-14  99 

1 
1 

3 

15-15  99 

"i 
1 

1 

1 

1 
1 

2 

.  .^. 

8 

16-16  99 

4 

17-17  99 

1 

3 

18-18  99 

2 

2 

4 

2 

1 

1 

4 

Total 

10 

17 

7 

5 

6 

20 

10 

8 

4 

6 

8 

15 

116 

Median  True  Tax  Rate  8 . 9. 

TABLE  19. 

True  Tax  Rates  of  All  Third  Class  Districts  in  Twelve 
Typical  Counties — 1922. 


True 
Tax 
Rate 

(Mills) 

2 

u 

C3 

O 

•B 
O 

« 

a 

Q 

o 

c 
o 

c« 

1-3 

0) 

c 

c 
o 

e 

a 

o 

c 
1 

W 

14 
O 

c 
o 

ti 
c 
!5 

"a 
o 

1 

2 

3 

4 

2 

2 

5 

1 
1 

1 

1 

2 

6 

2 

7 

1 

1 

2 

8 

3 

3 

9 

1 

1 

2 

10 

1 
1 
1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

11 

1 

2 

12 

2 
1 

3 

13 

1 

14 

15 

1 
1 

i 

16 

1 

17 

18 

Total 

3 

2 

6 

8 

3 

3 

25 

Median  True  Tax  Rate  9.7  mills. 


53 


TABLE  20. 
True  Tax  Rates  in  all  First  and  Second  Class  Cities — 1922. 


True  Tax  Rate 

First  and  Second 

(Mills) 

Class  Cities 

4-  4.99 

1 

5-5.99 

6-  6.99 

7-  7.99 

3 

8-  8.99 

3 

9-  9.99 

2 

10-10 . 99 

2 

11-11.99 

1 

12-12.99 

2 

13-13.99 

14-14 . 99 

15-15.99 

i 

Total 

15 

Median  True  Tax  Rate  9 . 2. 

These  tables  show  the  same  wide  range  as  in  the  case  of  true 
valuations  per  teacher  and  also  the  same  differences  between 
counties.  The  positions  of  the  counties  are,  however,  reversed 
from  what  they  were  in  the  table  of  true  valuations  inasmuch  as 
districts  with  low  valuations  must,  in  order  to  maintain  the  same 
type  of  school,  have  a  higher  tax  rate  than  districts  with  higher 
valuations. 

The  second  condition  for  an  efficient  system  of  General  Aid  given 
above  was  that  the  amount  of  state  aid  should  he  made  dependent  upon 
the  effort  of  local  districts  to  support  good  schools  as  revealed  by  their  tax 
rates.  Many  differences  shown  in  the  tax  rates  in  Tables  18, 19  and  20 
(pages  52  and  53)  are  due  to  the  differences  in  the  values  of  property. 
Districts  having  the  same  amounts  of  taxable  wealth  behind  each 
teacher  show  varying  tax  rates,  as  may  be  seen  from  Tables  21 
and  22  (pages  54  and  55)  for  fourth  and  third  class  districts  respec- 
tively. These  differences  in  tax  rates  are  due,  in  a  large  measure, 
to  the  ideas  of  the  people  residing  therein  as  to  the  standard  of 
schools  that  should  be  maintained. 


54 


TABLE  21. 

The  Relationship  Between  the  True  Valuations  per  Teacher 

AND  THE  True  Tax  Rate  in  Typical  Fourth  Class  Districts 

OF  Twelve  Typical  Counties,  1921-22. 


True  Tax  Rate  in  Mills. 

True  Valuation 
per  Teacher 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

& 
over 

"3 

S     0,000-     9,999 
10,000-  19,999 
20,000-  29.999 
30.000-  39,999 
40,000-  49,999 
50,000-  59,999 

i 

i 

1 
1 

i 

i 
1 

1 

i 

i 

1 
1 
1 

1 

1 
1 

2 

1 

1 

4 
2 

4 

2 

i 

1 

i 

1 

2 

1 
2 

i 
1 

i 

2 
2 

1 

1 
1 
1 

i 

i 

l".'. 

i".'. 

1 
2 
3 
4 
7 
13 

60,000-  69.999 

8 

70.000-  79.999 
80.000-  89.999 

1    .. 

11 
5 

90.000-  99.999 

i  . . 

7 

100,000-109.999 
110.000-119,999 
120.000-129,999 
130.000-139.999 
140,000-149.999 

.  . 

i 

2 

1 
1 

i 

1 

i 

1 

2 
2 

i 
i 

3 
2 

i 

2 

i 

2 

1 

i 
"i 

i 
i 

i 

1 

1 

1 

i 

1 
1 

12 

i 
i 

i 

5 

4 

i 
i 

7 

i 

4 

i 

1 

i 

8 

i 

5 

1 

2 

4 
8 
5 
3 

7 

150.000-159,999 
160,000-169,999 
170.000-179,999 
180,000-189,999 
190,000-199,999 
200,000-209,999 
210,000-219,999 
220,000-229,999 
230,000-239,999 
240,000-249,999 
250,000-259,999 
260,000-269,999 
280,000-289.999 

4 

1 
1 
1 

1 

1 
3 

1 
1 

3 
1 

290.000-299.999 
300,000-309,999 
310.000-319.999 
320.000-329.999 
330.000-339,999 
340.000-349,999 

1 
2 

350  and  over 

1 
2 

6 

1 

2 

- 

1 

Total 

3 

5 

11 

12 

16 

9 

3 

4 

114 

Median  True  Realty  $94,285. 
Median  True  Tax  Rate  9 . 3  mills. 


55 

TABLE  22. 

Relationship  Between  the  True  Valuation  per  Teacher 
AND  THE  True  Tax  Rate  in  all  Third  Class 
Districts  of  Twelve  Typical  Counties,  1921-22. 


True  Valuation 

TRUE  TAX  RATE  IN  MILLS 

Per  Teacher 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

Total 

70,000-  79,999 

1 

1 

80,000-  89,999 

1 

1 

90,000-  99,999 

1 

1 

1 

3 

100,000-109,999 

1 

110,000-119,999 

120,000-129,999 

1 

1 

130,000-139,999 

140,000-149,999 

1 

1 

150,000-159,999 

160,000-169,999 

170,000-179,999 

1 

1 

180,000-189,999 

1 

1 

210,000-219,999 

1 

1 

220,000-229,999 

230,000  and  over 

1 

1 

2 

Total           

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

2 

2 

13 

Median  True  Valuation  $125,000. 
Median  True  Tax  Rate  10.1  mills. 

Such  differences  will  always  exist.  If  an  efficient  system  of 
state  aid  were  put  into  effect  and  all  districts  of  lower  average 
valuation  per  teacher  should  be  put  upon  the  same  financial  foot- 
ing, they  would  vary  greatly  among  themselves  in  their  interest 
in  schools  and  in  the  amounts  of  money  that  they  would  choose 
to  put  into  them.  Some  districts  would  be  parsimonious  and  run 
as  cheap  schools  as  the  law  would  permit,  while  others  would 
employ  superior  teachers,  provide  them  with  first-class  equipment 
and  supplies,  introduce  provisions  for  sanitation  and  health,  for 
recreation  and  play,  for  developing  the  aesthetic  and  dramatic 
abilities  of  children  and  such  other  features  of  the  modem  school 
as  would  provide  a  superior  quality  of  education  for  their  children. 
All  of  these  additional  provisions  would  increase  the  cost  of  the 
school  and  would  require  higher  tax  rates  than  those  for  the 
districts  with  lower  educational  ideals.  Such  efforts  should  be 
rewarded  by  special  state  aid. 

The  state  is  suffering  greatly  today  from  the  effects  of  poor 
schooling  in  hundreds  of  districts — inferior  teaching,  short  terms, 
early  dropping  out  of  school,  poor  equipment,  unpleasant  sur- 
roundings, meagre  high  school  facilities,  etc.,  due  to  lack  of  interest 


56 

upon  the  part  of  the  people  as  well  as  to  the  low  valuations.  It  is 
believed  that  it  is  to  the  interest  of  the  state  to  encourage  such 
districts  to  improve  their  educational  facilities  in  order  that  their 
children  may  have  a  better  preparation  for  life.  This  may  be 
done  by  adjusting  the  amount  of  state  aid  to  the  efforts  made  by 
local  districts  to  furnish  such  superior  education  as  well  as  to  the 
valuation  of  their  taxable  property.  Merely  to  place  districts 
upon  the  same  financial  footing  does  not  offer  a  stimulus  to  such 
districts  to  improve.  Furthermore,  it  is  important  to  the  state 
as  a  whole  that  the  more  progressive  districts  be  encouraged  in 
their  educational  development  because,  as  results  of  such  efforts 
extend  out  among  the  less  progressive  districts  in  their  influence, 
they  serve  as  examples  to  be  followed.  It  is  not  possible  to  secure 
the  most  consistent  and  efficient  progress  in  a  decentralized  educa- 
tional system  such  as  we  have  in  America,  unless  we  take  care  that 
both  the  backward  and  progressive  districts  are  constantly  kept 
up  to  their  best  efforts. 

Details  of  the  Plan  of  General  Aid. 

The  significance  of  the  facts  that  have  been  revealed  above  is  that  a 
system  of  state  General  Aid  should  be  devised  for  Pennsylvania  which 
will,  in  the  distribution  of  state  school  money,  give  to  districts  in 
inverse  proportion  to  their  "ability"  to  support  schools  as  shown  by 
their  deficiencies  in  true  valuations  per  teacher,  and  on  the  other  hand 
in  direct  proportion  to  the  amount  of  effort  they  make  to  support 
schools  as  shown  by  their  true  tax  rates.  While  this  should  be  the 
basic  idea  of  the  system  of  state  support,  it  should  at  the  same  time 
be  so  administered  as  to  insure  the  maintenance  of  proper  stand- 
ards as  to  qualifications  of  teachers  and  types  of  equipment.  This 
can  be  realized  by  making  the  amounts  granted  dependent  upon 
the  maintenance,  by  local  authorities,  of  such  standards  as  estab- 
lished by  the  State  Legislature  or  other  central  agency. 

Such  a  plan,  based  upon  equalized  rates  determined  by  a  State 
Tax  Commission  or  Tax  Commissioner,  has  recently  been  formu- 
lated for  the  state  of  New  York  and  has  received  the  approval  of 
the  grange  and  of  the  Committee  of  21  representing  the  state 
and  is  now  being  seriously  proposed  for  adoption  by  the  next 
Legislature.  This  provides  that  the  amounts  of  General  Aid  which 
a  district  shall  receive  will  depend  upon  the  product  of  three  fac- 


57 

tors;  viz.,  its  deficiency  in  equalized  valuation  per  teacher  below  a 
standard  that  is  established  in  accordance  with  a  scientific  study 
of  conditions  in  that  state,  the  equalized  tax  rate  and  the  number 
of  teachers.  Tables  have  been  prepared  which  facilitate  the  work- 
ing of  the  plan  so  that  it  is  possible  for  local  school  board  mem- 
bers to  know  in  advance  the  amount  of  money  they  will  receive 
from  the  state  as  soon  as  their  plans  for  the  coming  year  have 
been  formulated. 


58 
Its  Operation  in  Pennsylvania. 

In  order  to  show  how  such  a  plan  for  General  Aid  would  work 
out  in  Pennsylvania,Table23  (pages60and  61)  has  been  prepared.  It 
shows  the  amount  that  would  be  given  by  the  state  for  each  teacher 
in  districts  classified  according  to  (1)  their  expenses  per  teacher, 
and  (2)  true  valuation  per  teacher.  For  example,  a  district  which 
has  an  interest  in  schools  measured  by  a  current  expense  of  $1,110 
per  teacher  and  a  valuation  of  $50,000  per  teacher  would  meet  its 
expenses  by  a  levy  of  a  6  mill  tax  bringing  in  $300  and  by  a  state 
grant  of  $810  per  teacher. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  every  district  having  a  valuation  of  less 
than  $185,000  per  teacher  can  support  schools  costing  $1,110  per 
teacher  on  a  6  mill  tax,  the  amount  of  state  aid  in  each  district 
being  the  difference  between  the  proceeds  of  a  6  mill  tax  in  such 
districts  and  $1,110.  Similarly,  all  other  districts  having  a  valua- 
tion of  less  than  $1,850  per  teacher  may  have  a  school  costing 
$1,295  per  teacher  with  a  levy  of  a  7  mill  tax,  or  a  school  costing 
$1,480  per  teacher  with  a  levy  of  an  8  mill  tax.  According  to  this 
plan,  therefore,  all  districts  with  the  same  standards  as  to  what 
constitutes  a  good  school,  having  a  valuation  of  less  than  $185,000 
per  teacher  are  by  this  scheme  of  complementary  state  aid  placed 
upon  an  equal  footing,  viz.,  the  financial  position  in  which  the 
$185,000  district  is  placed.  Thus,  it  is  possible  for  a  rural  district 
to  have  as  good  a  school  as  a  city  with  the  levy  of  the  same  tax 
rate.  This  has  the  effect  of  making  equal  opportunity  possible  for 
all  the  children  of  the  state  in  a  way  which  heretofore  has  not 
existed  and  of  stimulating  districts  to  take  advantage  thereof,  in- 
asmuch as  it  enables  all  of  these  districts  to  have  the  same  amounts 
of  money  available  for  current  expenses  upon  the  levy  of  the  same 
tax  rate.    These  figures  are  illustrated  in  Diagram  5. 

The  question  naturally  arises  why  the  valuation  of  $185,000 
per  teacher  was  chosen  as  the  equalization  point.  It  has  been 
estimated  by  carefully  extended  inquiry  that  the  true  valuation  of 
property  taxable  for  schools  in  Pennsylvania,  according  to  the 
data  from  the  secretaries  of  the  Boards  of  Education,  was  in  the 
year  1921,  $8,318,130,000.  The  number  of  teachers  in  the  state 
for  the  same  year  was  45,485.  The  first  figure  divided  by  the 
second  gives  the  quotient  $185,031  as  the  true  valuation  per 


59 


j^^ 


JJJO 


SQboo 


aoooof.oo^  -  soo 

/asooo -soooo  •  /JSitc  ,  cci  ^  ^/e                                   1 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

m^/ 

1      S7X         1 

'/////////'////'///r^/////////////////// 

1  If  coo  r.    Cc*  ^  c»* 

ies:co 

C'ii^^^  ^r/**" 

w>. 

P 

1        62'^       1 

I   fl6%  I 


£0.000 


FxPB^nsF-    JId4 

S-ococ.JI'Cf  ,  3£<, 

isyocc-scicc   r «r<,«>  ^  «><■»' *'»-                                     1 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

^^ 

1       27%       1 

'/////y///////////////////////////////////// 

//4,000 


'/*,ec 

c  >.c<iif  -7'9  t 

/gs-ooe^ 

i^Qoa^ric^fr^t.  ■»*<; 

//A  38%    v/>y>y>y. 

1        €2%      1 

y/////////////////M. 

I     aea,   ") 


f-j^Pt^nst-     J400 

fOoCO  X  - 

9ce  ^-900 

lec.  ixvsooor,  ^/Ji-coo 

»=#.  /«j>c> 

^^^B 

'7/////A      73'yi,    V/ 

^^^ 

^^ 

27Z       1 

y////////////////}// 

/y^.ooo 


'"""'<"'»  =  >"- 

/eS'0OC  ~  It^OOO  m  7f94fO  M    .OOfi  *   Xtff 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

1           6P%       1 

V////////////////////////////////// 

I     aeai.   ~| 


V/////V///^. 


^^^ 


kgtr/)/.  iufP0KT\ 


m 


Diagram  5.~  Amounts  of  Local  Support  and  Amounts  of  State  Aid 

Districts  will  Receive  from  the  State  Based  on  Their 

True  Valuation  per  Teacher  and  Current 

Expense  per  Teacher. 


60 


w 

> 

w 

o 

w 

tf   . 

^  R 

J    w 

J-  f« 

^  P 

M      O" 

Z     H 

o  p^ 

H     H 

;^  « 

P     O 

hJ       Oh 

<:   c 

>   ^ 

a  ^' 

W     1-] 

tsj    <; 

<3 

^ 

O-    fe 

CO 

W   o 

o    w 

7     H 

PQ 

tf    o 

< 

Sg 

w    <« 

H 

O    Q 

5  H 

H     > 

a  :^ 

"^^ 

a 

H     ffi 

<   o 

H     << 

M    H 

^S 

w     fe 

CD 

0000000000000 
C^C0'^O«0'M00-^O<D(MX'^ 

32a 

0000000000000 

c^cO'^cor^oio^co-^tDr* 

o 

as 
2- 

0000000000000 

■^^XOCMOtDCOO^-'^'-^OO 

coc^ooixtoic-n-co'-ioor* 

eoojc^iooo^'^t^ocoooc^ 

o 

S 

1' 
en 

0000000000000 

tOTfC^OCOtO-^C^CGOCC-tC^ 
^OOiOO^iOTfcOC^OOiMt* 

Sit 

0000000000000 

OOOOM'^sDOOOW-'tCOGOO 

•-^co'^ic<or^oo^o)m»o 

Oj 

0000000000000 
oo^*to»o■*cC'^^^oa)X^^o 
csxt^oiO'tfcc^^c-oor-co 

lit 
3sa 

u0C0h-XOJO^'NC0'^vC«Dl->. 

00 

«* 

X 

2  — 
2 

01 

p 

0000000000000 
0000000000000 

Xt>.«5>OTprOC^r-^OOiXt>>0 

lit 
0   3   g 

0000000000000 

<-*'NM'*'C«0t>.Xa)O-HC^ 

to 

1' 

2-5 

0000000000000 

-NM^iOtOt^XOSO'-i'MCO^ 
tOiO-^fCOC^^OCiCSXt^OiO 

lit 

0   3   0 

'<}<C0C^*-iOOXI>tD»0'*rtM 

^c^eo'<j''<*'*0(or^xaio-H 

00  _ 

P 

0000000000000 

■^(DXO'N'^CDXOC^-i'COX 
■>*rt<NC^^OC>XXI^COiC'<*" 

lit 

ass 

0000000000000 

■^'MOX©'*C^OXtO'^C^O 

i-H:^iNroTiiioocDi>xoio 

X 

1 

1- 

03 

0000000000000 
eooi'Miox^'^t^ocO'OO^':^ 
c^j^^oasoixr>.t^cD»jO'*Tf 

3sa 

C0Ob*-^t"  —  XiCCSCiOMOI^ 

2 

to  — 

1 

S2 

5^ 

0000000000000 

XC^IOO'^XWOO'J'XOIO 
OOOiOiXr^t^-OcCO-^TTCO 

'^  it 

0  3  0 

0000000000000 
ccosic  —  h"CCO*o^^-rtOiio 

X 

ii 

lOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
0)OOiOO»COiOOiOOOO 
OSXXt>.t^iO«OiO"5'<*''<J<COCO 

git 

2 

1- 
00 

0000000000000 

'MX-^OCDC^X-^OCDC^M^ 

lit 
0  3  0 

J  71  a 

0000000000000 

C^tOO-^WC^ltOO-^X-MOO 

Amount  to 

be  spent 

per  teacher 

for  current 

expenses 

m  a  h 

=  11 

0000000000000 
0000000000000 
000000  0  0  0  c  q  0  0 

^NC0'*>0«0b-X01O'-'0» 
M                                                     ^  i-<  •-< 

61 


a 

u 

w 

tf 

h] 

p 

hJ 

H 

^ 

73 

O" 

Z 

w 

o 

tf 

^ 

p 

n 

>-l 

0, 

< 

bJ 

> 

P 

Q 

C/J 

W 

J 

N 

<! 

< 

O 

o* 

E^ 

W 

O 

z 

z 

>- 

p 

« 

o 

> 

Cc. 

n 

o 

z 

r/j 

< 

Q 

M 

tf 

H 

> 

a 

Q 

d 

< 

S 

H 

W 

< 

OQ 

W 

b 

tf 

o 

o 

r/3 

ii« 

H 

Z 

1= 

O 

1 

M 

1 

|5 

CO 

1 

OOt^'0<-<00inc-lO>ON00OM00 
OC<rH--«^OC0<OC0^01t0^CSO> 
^•"('^■^•^■^COCOCOCOCJWC^IM^ 

h-  to 

^  O  O  OOl  00  "*< 
^  t*  t*  lO -^f  c» »-. 

o 

Ol 

o 

1 

|-^ 

o  o  o 
o  c^  o 

(D  lO  CC 

o>oot-ocooi^r;ot^(OOt-«o 

t^tC»0-»)<NOt^OC0O00tDC0^C; 

cococoeoeocONN(NC«-ii-i-«rt 

GO  lO  »o  (M  ci  <r  M 

t^  O  O  U2  CO  C^  "H 

■§  at 

3sa 

m  00    • 

t^  00      ■ 

1 
o 

1 

o  o  o 

O  00  o 
to  -^  CO 

—  01-<tliOrtC0iO«00O-H00iC 
•^C^OOOtOfO^OStO-^J^CSCSt^ 
MCOCOC-INMM  —  «-<-• 

lit 

o  o     ■ 

i 

1 

^2 

o  o  o 

o  ■«.  « 

woococt^coot^r: 
o  t>-  o  C-)  o  r^  "5  CO  o  00 

COC^JC^C^C^W^^rt 

O   3  g 
J  m  o. 

o  in  u; 
00  o>  c 
^  lO  t- 

s 

00 

i^ 

o  o  o  c 
o  o  o  c 

t*  ^  (M  00  u^  CI 

00  ^^  to  CO  '-I  o> 

O^HtOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

«oor»t^r-t*t^toto»oiO'«*coc4-H 

liiit 
3sa 

CO  ■*  m  to 

■:\-:\\\\\\\\^l^^\ 

2 

s 

CD 

o  to  t^  eft 

•*  M  M  — 

u^  1.0  o  to 
lO  CI  o  t- 

COOCOCOCOCOCOC<5CO-*'>1<tOOtOt~0001 
t»t»tOtOtOtOtOtOtO>OlO-<(l-*COCl-i 

lit 

^  ifi  t^  ir. 

-1  O  O)  00 

M  n  rt  ■* 

•* 

CO  S 

1 

1? 

00 

o  o  o  o  c 

O  ^1  Tl<  to  00 
*  «  IM  -< 

f- 

^totototototototototoooooooci^tooo 

tOiOiOiOiO>OiO>0>0"5>01<'*-*T(<COCl  — 

3Sg 

oo  oo  c 
00  to  ■*  c^  o 

O  -c  C^  «  •* 

i 

H 

OS 

1 

1? 

CD 

OOOOOMtD0»0S0s»0i0>aJ0>0>0>(MC^i0»n00»-«'^t^ 
iO00-Hil't-<O'O'*'*'0<'*'*-*-*'*-<'-*->l'-*eOM<NM  — 
COM  N  -» 

Hi 

lO  lO  >0  O  lO 
■*  -1  00  "O  « 
OJ  O  O  -H  N 



M 

|5 

CQ 

OOOOO'<C00C«INH(NIN<NNMININt0t0OO-*00MtD 
O-<f<00C^<DU5'*'>»''*'*'*'«''<l<->l">*'>JI-*t0Mt<0MM-<i-i 

n  ?<  -1  -1 

32S 

o  o  o  o  o 

w  t>-  CO  Ol  lO 

00  00  o>  o>  o 

... 

eo 

3 

S 

Is 

lOoicoo-^'^eococococococoeocococococ^c^fN^^ 
M  c^  ^  ^ 

lit 

32a 

lO  lO  lO  »o  irj 

t»  c-i  t^  M  r» 

to  ho  r^  00  00 

o 

1^ 

0) 

oooootoe^ooooaooooQO«««oo'*'^ootoc^QO^ 

OtO«00'0'eC«NM«NM(NMNC-JINlN01NN-H-. 

C<  >-i  -" 

lit 
5sa 

O  lO  to  to  t>- 

Amount  to 

be  spent 

per  teacher 

tor  current 

expenses 

™  «  >> 
III 

^-  ^  o 

Jl 

o  o  c 

o  o  c 
o  o  c 
in  '.o  u 

CO  ■*  ' 
I-«  •-»  ^ 

<• 
1 

3  C 

>  c 

c 
c 
c 

ooooooooooooooooooo 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOO 
OOO00OOOO0OOO00C3000 
»0  »0  »0  >0  "O  '.O  'O  to  'O  t.o"  lO  lO  'O"  »o"  iO*  lO  to  lO  »o 

oio^c*co-ri-otor^c/3aiO'0  0"Ooooo 

i-10MCMOJC<NCJ(NClC4COCO-*'<'>OtOr~00 

62 

teacher.  Thus,  the  effect  of  the  plan  is  to  place  all  schools  repre- 
senting valuations  below  the  average  on  the  same  plane  as  the 
school  at  the  average  valuation,  $185,000.  This  may  then  be 
called  the  Standard  True  Valuation  per  teacher. 

Each  true  valuation  has  its  corresponding  percentage  quota. 
There  is  another  feature  of  this  table  which  is  of  particular  impor- 
tance because  it  furnishes  a  method  for  short,  simple  computation 
of  the  amount  of  aid  that  a  district  will  receive.  It  will  be  noticed 
that  for  any  valuation  in  Table  23  the  amount  of  state  aid  given 
in  any  column  is  always  the  same  proportion  of  the  total  expense 
given  at  the  head  of  the  column.  Thus  any  districts  with  a  valua- 
tion per  teacher  of  $50,000  will  receive  from  the  state  twenty-seven 
percent  of  its  total  expenses  for  each  teacher,  no  matter 
which  column  is  taken.  In  the  same  way  in  which  there  is  a  per- 
centage for  a  true  valuation  per  teacher  of  $50,000,  so  there  is  a 
percentage  for  each  of  the  true  valuations  shown  in  the  table  and 
for  all  others  that  lie  between  them.  The  percentage  for  a  defi- 
ciency in  true  valuation  per  teacher  of  $1,000  would  be  one  hundred 
one  hundred  eighty-fifths  (100/185  or  20/37)  percent.  The  per- 
centage for  any  given  thousand  as  $135,000is  this  fraction  multiplied 
by  the  number  of  thousands  of  deficiency  in  question  (20  37x35  =  73). 
Diagram  5  serves  to  make  clear  these  points. 

It  remains  to  explain  the  amounts  given  districts  with  a  valua- 
tion of  above  $185,000.  These  amounts  are  fixed  arbitrarily  and  are 
given  on  the  ground  that  it  is  a  wise  financial  policy  for  the  state  to 
grant  some  aid  to  every  district,  irrespective  of  its  valuation 
and  tax  rate.  The  amounts,  however,  decrease  as  the  valuations 
increase.  The  plan  is  so  arranged  also  that  as  a  city  of  any  given 
valuation  increases  its  tax  within  the  limit  of  a  given  maximum, 
the  amount  of  state  aid  will  also  increase. 

On  the  right  side  of  Table  23,  midway  between  the  upper  and 
lower  ranges  of  valuations,  is  a  blocked  off  portion.  The  amoimts 
contained  therein  are  much  larger,  it  will  be  noticed,  than  those 
that  would  be  there  if  the  method  followed  with  the  lower  tax 
rates  had  been  extended  through  to  the  higher  tax  rates.  The 
increased  amounts  are  rewards  to  districts  levying  a  higher  tax 
rate  than  8  mills  and  spending  more  than  $1,480  per  teacher  for 
current  expenses.  The  figures  represent  one-third  of  the  difference 
between  the  proceeds  of  the  tax  given  at  the  head  of  the  respective 


63 

columns  and  $1,480.  This  is  done  in  order  to  stimulate  districts 
in  the  higher  range  of  valuations  to  carry  out  new  ideas,  the  benefit 
of  which  will  extend  to  the  entire  state  by  the  retention  and  spread 
of  those  methods  that  are  found  to  be  the  most  efficient.* 

A  close  examination  of  the  amounts  shown  above  and  below  in 
this  block  will  show  that  certain  readjustments  have  been  made  in 
order  to  make  the  application  of  the  principles  more  uniform. 

Thus,  according  to  this  plan,  every  district  in  this  state  having 
a  valuation  above  the  standard  equalized  valuation  of  $185,000 
will  receive  a  substantial  reward  from  the  state  for  developing  its 
school  to  an  unusual  order  of  excellence.  The  benefit  to  the  state 
from  this  progress  upon  the  part  of  such  school  districts  is  sufficient 
recompense  for  the  expenditure. 

Approximately  54  percent  of  the  teachers  of  the  state  are  in  the 
fourth  class  districts;  of  these  75  percent  are  in  districts  having  a 
valuation  below  $180,000.  Approximately  16  percent  are  in  the 
third  class  districts  and  of  these  approximately  70  percent  are  in 
the  range  below  $180,000.  About  11  percent  are  in  the  second 
class  districts,  but  not  more  than  one-quarter  of  them  are  in  the 
districts  having  valuations  below  $180,000.  All  of  the  teachers  in 
the  first  class  districts,  approximately  19  percent  of  the  total,  are 
in  the  upper  range  of  valuation,  Pittsburgh  having  a  valuation  of 
$302,125  per  teacher  and  Philadelphia  a  valuation  of  $439,361  per 
teacher. 


•Figures  in  this  blocked  oflF  portion  of  the  table  are  based  in  error  on  7  mills  instead  of  8  mills. 


64 

Maintenance  of  Standards  Under  Such  a  Plan 
of  General  Aid. 

In  order  to  maintain  proper  standards  in  the  local  schools  under 
this  plan  of  General  Aid  it  is  recommended  that  these  provisions 
be  incorporated: 

1.  Average  Daily  Attendance. — In  order  to  encourage 
regular  attendance  in  school  it  is  recommended  that  the 
State  Department  of  Public  Instruction  be  empowered  to 
establish  annually  a  percent  of  average  daily  attendance 
which  must  be  maintained  by  the  different  classes  of  districts 
in  order  to  receive  the  full  amount  indicated  in  the  above 
table  and  that  for  each  percent  of  the  average  daily 
attendance  falling  below  such  standard  the  amount  of 
state  aid  granted  be  reduced  one-tenth. 

2.  Salaries  of  Teachers. — That  maximum  salaries  be  fixed 
for  teachers  having  qualifications  less  than  graduation 
from  the  State  Normal  Schools  or  the  equivalent  thereof 
for  which  state  aid  will  be  granted. 

3.  Expenses  of  Operation  and  Maintenance. — That 
standard  unit  costs  per  teacher  be  established  for  both  oper- 
ation and  maintenance  for  which  state  aid  will  be  given. 
These  standards  should  be  based  upon  a  careful  study  of 
the  practice  of  typical  school  districts.  The  districts  should 
be  grouped  for  this  purpose  in  such  a  way  as  will  best 
promote  the  efficiency  of  the  schools. 

4.  Extent  of  Aid. — That  a  maximum  amount  for  teachers' 
salaries  and  for  other  expenses  be  fixed  up  to  which  the 
state  will  not  give  aid. 

Difficulties  of  Incorporating  the  Plan 
in  the  Edmonds  Act. 

Proposed  State  Tax  Commission — Present  Method  of 
Determining  Rates  of  Assessment. 

The  great  difficulty,  although  not  an  insurmountable  one,  in  the 
adoption  of  this  plan  in  this  state  is  the  absence  of  some  such  body 
as  a  State  Tax  Commission  or  Revenue  Commissioner  with 
authority  to  ascertain  the  rates  of  assessment  of  property  that 
have  been  used  in  the  assessment  of  property  by  the  local  assessors 
in  the  various  counties  and  also  in  the  various  townships  within 
the  counties. 


65 

It  is  not  necessary,  however,  to  await  the  passage  of  further 
legislation  in  order  to  put  into  effect  the  "Ability  and  Effort  Plan" 
herein  outlined  for  General  Aid.  For  the  past  six  or  seven  years 
officers  of  the  various  school  districts  in  the  state  have  reported 
the  assessed  valuation  of  property  taxable  for  schools  within  their 
districts,  the  rate  of  assessment  or  the  percent  of  the  true  value  at 
which  the  property  was  taxed,  and  the  number  of  mills  levied. 

It  is  beheved  that  these  figures  furnished  by  the  school  secre- 
taries give  sufficiently  reliable  data  to  make  them  the  basis  of  a 
distribution  system  for  a  period  of  the  next  six  or  eight  or  possibly 
ten  years,  by  which  time  it  will  be  possible  to  put  through  the 
desired  revision  in  the  taxable  system  of  the  state,  or  failing  in 
that,  so  to  test  out  the  distribution  of  state  aid  under  the  plan 
herein  recommended  as  to  be  able  to  say  whether  it  should  be 
continued,  modified  or  abandoned.  While  it  is  not  at  all  improba- 
ble that  the  plan  might  be  continued,  nevertheless,  even  if  it  is 
necessary  to  abandon  it,  the  schools  will  have  received  considerable 
benefit  during  the  period  covered. 

The  truth  or  the  falsity  of  the  above  conclusion  rests  upon  the 
reliability  of  the  assessment  rates  as  reported  by  the  secretaries  of 
the  Boards  of  Education  to  the  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruc- 
tion. Two  classes  of  studies  have  been  made  of  these  assessment 
rates;  first,  as  regards  their  uniformity  through  a  period  of  years, 
and  second,  as  regards  their  reliability  as  tested  out  in  an  actual 
field  study.  Tables  24  and  25  (page  66)  show  the  average  deviation 
in  the  rates  of  assessment  during  the  past  three  years,  1920-21-22,  for 
selected  third  and  fourth  class  districts  in  the  state,  respectively. 
It  will  be  noted  that  in  each  of  these  tables  over  one-half  of  the 
districts  reported  exactly  the  same  rates  of  assessment  for  each 
of  the  three  years  and  that  in  three-quarters  of  the  districts  the 
variation  was  not  more  than  6  percent  in  the  fourth  class  districts 
and  in  the  first  and  second  districts  not  over  4  percent. 


66 


TABLE  24. 


Average  Deviations  in  the  Rates  of  Assessment  for  Three 

Years,  1920-21-22,  in  Typical  Third  and  Fourth 

Class  Districts  of  Typical  Counties. 


Deviations 

2 

0 

o 

"i 

eg 

O 

01 

1 

c 
o 

1 

03 
V 

c 
d 

o 

c 

c 
o 

*J 

a 
E 
a 

X 

1- 
o 

c 
> 

3 
W 

M 
O 

H 

c 

0 

c 
Ic 

1 

0 
.1-       99 

6 

14 

9 

1 

2 

14 

16 

8 

1 

5 

4 

7 

13 

99 
1 

1-  1  99 

1 
2 
2 
2 
2 

1 

,  1 

4 

1 
2 

1 

"i" 
■■'2' 

4 

2-  2  99 

3 

1 

. . . . 

1 
1 

14 

3-  3  99 

5 

4-  4  99 

1 

"l' 
2 

1 

1 

1 
1 

7 

5-  5  99 

3 

1 
1 

1 
1 

8 

fr-  6.99 

3 
1 

6 

7-  7.99 

1 
1 

1 
1 

1 

1 

7 

8-  8  99 

3 

9-  9  99 

1 

2 

...... 

3 

10-10.99 

1 
1 

1 

11-11.99 

1 
1 

1 

4 

12-12.99 

1 



1 

2 

5 

13-13  99 

2 

2 

14-14.99 

1 

1 

15-15  99 

1 

1 

2 

1 

5 

16-16.99 

17-17.99 

1 

1 

18-18.99 

1 

1 

19-19.99 

1 

1 

20  &  over 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

Total 

18 

20 

16 

5 

6 

23 

25 

17 

6 

7 

14 

25 

182 

Median  Deviation  0. 


TABLE  25. 

Average  Deviation  in  the  Rates  of  Assessment  for  Three 
Years,  1920-21-22,  in  all  First  and  Second 
Class  Cities. 


First  and  Second 

Deviations 

Class  Cities 

0 

11 

1-      .99 

1-  1.99 

2-  2.99 

3-  3.99 

4-  4.99 

5-  5.99 

6-  6.99 

7-  7.99 

8-  8.99 

9-  9.99 

10-10.99 

11-11.99 

12-12.99 

Total 

20 

Median  Deviation  0. 


67 

TABLE  26. 

Distribution  of  Average  Deviation  in  Rates  of  Assessment 
FOR  Five  Years,  1917-19-20-21-22,  in  Typical  Third 
AND  Fourth  Class  Districts. 


Deviations 

3 

CIS 

0 

0 

"a! 

1 
<2 

c 
p 

"3 

i 

a 
a 

a 
5 

c 
0 

0. 

a 

31 

c 
a 
> 

w 

0 

0 

S 

"3 

0 

"i 

"i' 

1 

"i' 
1 

5 
1 

1 
1 
2 
1 
2 

10 

2 

1 
1 

3 

1 

2 

4 

26 

1-     .99 

4 

1-  1.99 

5 

"i 
2 
1 

1 

1 
1 

1 

2 
1 
2 

2 

12 

2-  2.99 

1 

1 

6 

3-  3.99 

1 
1 
1 
1 

1 

"2 
1 
1 
1 

1 
2 

18 

4-  4.99 

7 

5-  5.99 

3 

1 

1 
3 
1 
1 
2 
3 

11 

6-  6.99 

1 
2 

"1 

7 

7-  7.99 

2 
1 

1 
1 

1 

9 

8-  8.99 

"2 

"2 

1 
1 

3 
1 

1 
..... 

6 

9-  9  99 

1 

2 

"i 

1 

2 
2 
1 

1 

1 
2 

1 

12 

10-10.99 

1 

1 
1 

11 

11-11  99 

1 

9 

12-12.99 

1 

4 

13-13.99 

1 

1 

1 

2 

5 

14-14.99 

1 

2 

15-15  99 

1 

1 

2 

16-16.99 

1 

1 

17-17.99 

1 

1 

2 

18-18.99 

1 

1 

19-19.99 

1 

1 

20-20 . 99 

1 

1 

2 

24-24 . 99 

1 

1 

25-25  99 

1 

1 

2 

Total 

14 

20 

11 

5 

5 

22 

14 

15 

8 

7 

10 

24 

155 

Median  Deviation  5.8. 

The  years  represented  in  Tables  24  and  25  constitute  a  period 
covered  by  a  triennial  assessment.  In  order  to  show  the  extent 
of  variation  in  assessment  rates  between  triennial  periods, 
Table  26  has  been  prepared.  This  shows  the  deviation  in 
rates  of  assessment  in  selected  third  and  fourth  class  districts  in 
twelve  counties  over  a  five-year  period,  1917-22.  While  only  one- 
sixth  of  the  districts  recorded  the  same  rate  of  assessment  for 
each  of  the  five  years,  one-half  of  the  districts  show  a  variation  of 
less  than  6  percent. 

From  these  figures  the  inference  may  be  fairly  drawn  that  the 
school  secretaries  did  not  pursue  a  hit  or  miss  policy  in  reporting 
the  rates  of  assessment.  In  most  communities  of  the  state  there 
is  a  generally  accepted  rate  of  assessment  known  to  all  citizens  who 
have  some  part  in  the  taxation  of  property  and  to  most  owners 
of  property.  The  secretaries  of  the  Boards  of  Education  have  as 
one  of  their  duties  the  making  of  a  transcript  of  the  assessment  roll 


68 

as  reported  by  the  Board  of  County  Commissioners.  They  are, 
therefore,  probably  as  well  acquainted  with  the  actual  assessment 
as  any  one  person  except  possibly  the  assessors  and  are,  therefore, 
competent  to  express  a  common-sense  opinion  as  to  what  these 
rates  of  assessment  are.  The  uniformity  shown  in  the  above 
tables  waiTants  the  inference  that  in  practically  all  cases  the  secre- 
taries of  the  Boards  of  Education  report  these  commonly  known 
rates  of  assessment.  They  are  believed  to  be  reasonably  accurate 
statements  of  the  rates  of  assessment  used  in  their  districts, 
although  not  so  accurate  as  would  be  determined  by  a  regularly 
constituted  authority  as  a  Revenue  Commissioner  or  a  Tax  Com- 
missioner using  more  exact  methods. 

The  second  type  of  study  of  rates  of  assessment  was  made  by 
Principal  Charles  H.  Fisher,  of  the  Bloomsburg  State  Normal 
School,  in  the  year  1918-1919,  during  the  time  when  he  was  Profes- 
sor of  Education  at  the  West  Chester  State  Normal  School.  An 
extract  from  this  paper,  based  upon  a  careful  study  in  which  many 
different  persons  as  well  as  records  of  sales  of  property  were  con- 
sulted, is  given  herewith. 

"As  a  result  of  this  checking,  the  rates  of  the  fourteen  boroughs 
were  left  unchanged.  Out  of  a  total  of  fifty-nine  townships  one 
low  assessment  of  30  percent  was  increased  and  eleven  high  rates 
of  assessment  were  decreased,  while  the  rest  were  left  unchanged. 
It  is  evident  that  there  is  a  tendency  to  report  the  rates  of  assess- 
ment too  high  rather  than  too  low.  In  the  case  of  twelve  districts 
out  of  seventy-three,  or  about  one-sixth  of  all  the  districts,  the 
rates  of  assessment  were  changed.  The  extent  of  the  variation  in 
the  correlated  rates  of  assessment  is  so  small  that  one  is  warranted 
in  drawing  the  conclusion  that  the  rate  of  assessment  is  a  depend- 
able figure  to  use  in  such  a  study.  The  writer  is  willing  to  go 
further  and  say,  that  from  the  standpoint  of  this  one  county,  the 
rate  of  assessment  would  be  a  dependable  figure  to  use  in  making 
the  computations  upon  which  to  grant  state  aid  for  schools.  This 
figure  cotild  be  made  useful  throughout  the  state  by  giving  author- 
ity to  a  State  Tax  Commission  or  the  State  Board  of  Education 
to  investigate  and  correct  rates  of  assessment.  Compared  with 
the  school  census,  which  is  used  in  this  state  as  one  of  the  two 
bases  for  state  aid,  the  rate  of  assessment  could  be  used  to  deter- 
mine a  basis  for  state  aid  that  would  probably  be  more  equitable 


69 

according  to  the  need,  ability  and  effort  of  school  districts  to 
support  schools."* 

It  is  believed  that  these  facts  regarding  uniformity  and  the  close 
correspondence  of  the  rates  of  assessment  as  reported  in  Chester 
County  would  go  to  show  that  these  rates  of  assessment  can  be  used 
as  a  basis  of  distribution  in  the  absence  of  a  State  Tax  Commission 
or  a  State  Revenue  Commissioner.  While  there  is  a  fairly  wide 
departure  from  actual  valuations  in  the  case  of  25  percent  of  the 
school  districts,  this  situation  is  not  so  bad  as  under  existing  con- 
ditions in  which  fully  50  percent  of  the  districts  receive  an  amount 
considerably  larger  or  smaller  than  they  need  in  order  to  conduct 
efficient  schools. 

Although  it  is  believed  that  the  facts  presented  above  are  suffi- 
cient warrant  for  the  conclusion  stated,  nevertheless  it  is  realized 
that  it  would  probably  be  a  good  plan  to  extend  the  study  made 
by  Principal  Fisher  to  other  counties.  Such  studies  could,  if 
necessary,  be  made  in  a  period  of  a  few  weeks  and  the  results  would 
help  to  establish  or  controvert  the  statement  just  made. 

Inasmuch  as  the  figures  already  in  the  office  of  the  State  Super- 
intendent of  Public  Instruction  have  been  submitted  without 
thought  of  their  being  used  in  the  distribution  of  state  school 
funds,  it  would  seem  that  these  data  could  be  used  in  the  proposed 
plan  of  state  aid. 

Certain  difficulties  would  be  encountered  by  using  the  rates  of 
assessment  for  each  preceding  year,  but  it  is  believed  that  the 
rates  as  they  have  been  reported  in  the  last  few  years  could  be 
used  for  a  period  of  from  six  to  ten  years  in  the  immediate  future. 
In  all  probability  if  this  plan  were  adopted  it  would  have  the  effect 
of  fixing  the  rates  of  assessment  of  property  during  this  entire 
period.  If  that  were  the  case  the  plan  might  then  be  continued 
for  a  number  of  years  in  advance  in  the  event  that  an  amendment 
was  not  made  in  the  state  taxation  system. 

Summary. — It  is  recommended,  therefore: 

1.  That  a  revision  in  the  state  taxation  system  be  made  such 
as  will  provide  for  state-wide  evaluation  of  assessment 
rates  through  such  an  agency  as  a  State  Tax  Commission 
or  a  State  Revenue  Commissioner. 


•Schoolmen's  Week  Proceedings,  1919,  University  of  Pennsylvania,  page  255. 


70 

2.  That  if  this  cannot  be  secured,  the  figures  reported  to  the 
State  Department  of  Public  Instruction  in  the  annual 
district  reports  be  used  as  bases  in  the  determination  of 
true  valuation  and  tax  rates  in  the  carrying  out  of  a 
revised  plan  of  General  Aid  based  upon  the  "ability"  of, 
and  the  "effort"  made  by  the  local  districts  in  the  support 
of  schools. 

Rough  Draft  of  the  Essential  Provisions  That  Should 
be  Included  in  a  Lav^  Establishing  General  Aid. 

Section  1.   The  terms  used  in  this  act  shall  be  understood  as  having  the 
meanings  hereby  given  them  as  follows: 

(a)  The  State  Standard  True  Valuation  per  teacher  shall  be  the  total  true 

valuation  of  property  taxable  for  schools  in  all  the  school  districts 
of  the  state  for  the  year  preceding  divided  by  the  total  number  of 
teachers  in  all  the  public  schools  of  the  state.  The  true  valuation 
of  the  property  taxable  for  schools  shall  be  determined  by  a  State 
Tax  Commission  or  State  Revenue  Commission.  If  such  body  is 
not  created,  it  shall  be  determined  by  the  State  Superintendent  of 
Public  Instruction,  based  upon  computation  of  data  submitted  by 
the  officers  of  the  school  districts  in  their  annual  reports  to  the 
State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction. 

(b)  The  true  valuation  per  teacher  of  any  district  shall  be  the  true  valua- 

tion for  that  district  divided  by  the  number  of  full  time  teachers 
employed  for  the  preceding  year,  including  principals,  supervisors 
and  superintendents,  but  excluding  principals  and  teachers  receiv- 
ing national  grants  under  the  Smith-Hughes  Act.  The  true  valua- 
tion of  the  taxable  property  for  any  district  shall  be  determined  by 
dividing  the  amount  of  its  assessed  valuation  for  the  year  preceding 
by  the  rate  of  equalization  as  determined  for  the  same  year  by  the 
State  Tax  Commission.  If  such  a  body  is  not  created  the  true 
valuation  per  teacher  for  any  district  shall  be  determined  by  the 
State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  based  upon  computa- 
tion of  data  submitted  by  the  officers  of  the  school  districts  in  their 
annual  reports  to  the  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction. 
The  true  valuation  of  the  taxable  property  shall  be  obtained  by 
dividing  the  amount  of  the  assessed  valuation,  certified  in  the 
annual  report  for  the  year  preceding,  by  the  average  rate  of  assess- 
ment for  the  year  1919-20,  1920-21,  1921-22. 

(c)  The  State  Standard  Percentage  shall  be  one  hundred  percent  divided 

by  the  number  of  entire  thousands  of  dollars  in  the  State  Standard 
Equalized  Valuation  per  teacher  (100       20  percent). 

185       37 

(d)  The  Percentage  Quota  of  any  district  shall  be  the  State  Standard 

Percentage  multiplied  by  the  number  of  entire  thousands  of  dollars 
that  the  districts  Equalized  Valuation  per  teacher  is  less  than  the 
State  Standard  Valuation  per  teacher. 

(e)  The  Total  Local  Expenses  of  any  district  shall  be  the  total  current 

expenses  less  all  forms  of  Special  Aid  and  all  gifts  for  current 
expenses. 


I 


71 


Section  2.  Any  school  district  in  the  state  having  an  equalized  valuation  per 
teacher  less  than  the  State  Standard  Equalized  Valuation  per  teacher  shall 
receive  from  the  state  such  a  proportion  of  its  total  local  expenses  for  the 
preceding  year  (or  of  its  expenses  for  teachers'  salaries)  as  is  indicated  by  its 
percentage  quota,  provided  the  minimum  and  maximum  standards  prescribed 
by  law  relative  to  schools  are  observed. 

Section  3.  Any  school  district  in  the  state  having  for  each  full  time  teacher 
employed  as  large  or  a  larger  equalized  valuation  than  the  amount  fixed  as  the 
State  Standard  Equalized  Valuation  per  teacher  shall  receive  from  the  state 
for  each  teacher  as  follows: 

Districts  having  an  equalized  valuation  of — 


$185,000 
200,000 
300,000—  400,000 
400,000—  500,000 
500,000—  600,000 
600,000—  700,000 
700,000—  800,000 
800,000—  900,000 
900,000  and  over- 


200,000  shall  receive  for  each  mill  levied 
300,000 


for  each  teacher 


Section  4.  Any  school  district  in  the  state  having  an  annual  expense  per 
teacher  of  $xxxx  or  more  and  levying  a  tax  for  current  expenses  of  $xxxx  or  more 
shall  receive  from  the  state  at  least  one-third  of  the  difference  between  the 
amount  of  its  local  support  and  $xxxx  is  times  the  number  of  teachers. 

Section  5.  State  aid  under  the  provision  of  Sections  2,  3  and  4  shall  not  be 
granted  for  teachers'  salaries  over  and  above  $xxxx  for  each  teacher  employed, 
nor  for  any  teacher  teaching  under  a  certificate  of  lower  grade  than  a  Normal 
School  or  standard  certificate  at  a  salary  exceeding  $100  per  month.  Grants 
shall  be  made  for  expenses  other  than  teachers'  salaries  only  in  those  districts 
having  a  true  valuation  per  teacher  employed  of  less  than  $90,000;  such  grants 
shall  not  be  over  and  above  25  percent  of  the  amount  expended  for  teachers' 
salaries. 

The  Massachusetts  Law. 

Objection  will  possibly  be  made  to  this  proposed  bill  on  the  ground  of  lack  of 
clearness  as  to  its  meaning.  Great  care  has  been  made  to  give  as  simple  a 
statement  as  possible  of  the  conditions  that  should  govern  and,  at  the  same 
time,  meet  the  demands  of  the  complex  situation  existing  in  Pennsylvania. 
It  seems  impossible  to  attain  efl^icien'-y  in  this  particular  and  at  the  same  time 
have  as  simple  statements  in  the  laws  governing  distribution  of  school  funds 
as  have  existed  in  the  past.  In  this  connection  it  would  be  worth  while  to 
know  the  results  of  a  similar  effort  in  Massachusetts,  which  state  in  1919, 
after  a  careful  study  of  conditions,  passed  a  law  which  is  similar  in  its  purpose 
to  the  measure  proposed  above.  Only  the  essential  paragraphs  are  quoted.  It 
is  believed  that  the  law  herein  proposed  is  as  simple  as  the  statements  of  the 
Massachusetts  Law  which  has  been  in  effect  for  the  past  three  years  and  which 
has  been  working  satisfactorily.    The  central  features  of  the  law  are  as  follows: 


72 

"*Section  3.  For  each  person  employed  for  full-time  service  for  the  entire 
school  year  as  teacher,  supervisor,  principal,  assistant  superintendent,  or 
superintendent  of  schools,  the  city  or  town  shall  be  reimbursed  as  follows: 

(1)  Two  hundred  dollars  for  every  such  person  who  has  received  as  salary 

not  less  than  eight  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  and  who  is  a  graduate 
of  an  approved  normal  school  or  college  and  has  had  at  least  two 
years'  teaching  experience  or  who  possesses  preparation  and  teach- 
ing experience  accepted  in  lieu  thereof. 

(2)  One  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  for  every  such  person,  not  included  in 

the  foregoing  classification,  who  has  received  as  salary  not  less  than 
seven  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  and  (a)  who  has  satisfactorily  com- 
pleted one  year  of  professional  training  in  an  approved  normal 
school  or  teachers'  training  school,  and  has  had  at  least  three 
years'  of  teaching  experience;  or  (b)  is  a  graduate  of  an  approved 
normal  school  or  college,  and  has  had  at  least  one  year  of  teaching 
experience;  or  (c)  who  possesses  preparation  and  teaching  experience 
accepted  in  lieu  of  either  of  the  foregoing  requirements  in  this 
paragraph. 

(3)  One  hundred  dollars  for  every  such  person,  not  included  in  either 

paragraphs  (1)  or  (2),  who  has  received  as  salary  not  less  than  six 
hundred  and  fifty  dollars." 
"tSection  5.  Every  city  or  town  in  which  the  valuation  of  its  real  and  per- 
sonal property,  including  omitted  assessments,  for  the  city  or  town  fiscal  year 
next  preceding  the  date  of  distribution,  when  divided  by  the  net  average 
membership  of  its  public  day  schools,  as  defined  in  section  six  of  this  act,  for 
the  year  ending  on  the  thirtieth  day  of  June  next  preceding  the  date  of  distribu- 
tion, yields  a  quotient  less  than  forty-five  hundred  dollars,  shall  receive  sup- 
plementary reimbursements  determined  as  follows: 

For  each  person  for  whom  the  city  or  town  received  reimbursement  for 
full-time  service,  in  accordance  with  section  three,  the  supplementary 
reimbursement  shall  be  as  follows: 

(1)  Three  hundred  dollars  if  said  valuation  per  pupil  is  less  than  two 

thousand  dollars. 

(2)  Two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  if  said  valuation  per  pupil  is  less  than 

twenty-five  hundred  dollars  but  not  less  than  two  thousand  dollars. 

(3)  Two  hundred  dollars  if  said  valuation  per  pupil  is  less  than  three 

thousand  dollars  but  not  less  than  twenty-five  hundred  dollars. 

(4)  One  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  if  said  valuation  per  pupil  is  less  than 

thirty-five  hundred  dollars  but  not  less  than  three  thousand  dollars. 

(5)  One  hundred  dollars  if  said  valuation  per  pupil  is  less  than  four 

thousand  dollars  but  not  less  than  thirty-five  hundred  dollars. 

(6)  Fifty  dollars  if  said  valuation  per  pupil  is  less  than  forty-five  hundred 

dollars  but  not  less  than  four  thousand  dollars. 
For  each  person  for  whom  the  city  or  town  received  reimbursement  for 
part-time  service,  in  accordance  with  section  four,  the  supplementary 
reimbursement  shall  be  such  a  fractional  part  of  the  corresponding  sup- 
plementary reimbursement  provided  for  full-time  service  as  that  service 
bore  to  full-time  service." 

lOi'n^^l^^^i'^Jfrt^,  ^'^"'^^*'°"^'  Legislation  Enacted  in  1919,  Bulletin  of  the  Board  of  Education, 
1919.  No.  6,  Whole  No.  108,  p.  30. 

,otS:*"^'^'^"^tH  Educational  Legislation  Enacted  in  1919,  Bulletin  of  the  Board  of  Education, 
1919,    No.    6,    Whole   No.    108,    pp.   30-31. 


73 

"*Section  10.  For  the  purposes  of  Part  II  of  this  Act  the  following  words 
and  phrases  shall  be  defined  as  follows: 

"The  word  'valuation'  shall  mean  the  valuation  of  the  town,  as  determined 
by  the  last  preceding  assessors'  valuation  thereof,  exclusive  of  omitted  assess- 
ments. 

"The  word  'assured  minimum'  shall  mean  the  amount  by  which  the  sum 
of  the  following  items  for  the  last  preceding  town  fiscal  year  exceeded  the 
amount  received  during  that  year,  but  that  town  under  the  provisions  of  Part  I 
of  this  Act,  and  for  the  tuition  of  non-resident  pupils,  including  state  wards. 

(1)  Salaries  paid  during  that  year  to  principals  and  full-time  teachers, 

not  including  any  amounts  by  which  any  such  salary  was  at  a 
rate  in  excess  of  eight  hundred  and  fifty  dollars. 

(2)  Two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  for  each  teaching  position  occupied 

by  one  or  more  principals  or  full-time  teachers  for  that  year,  to 
defray  expenses  of  operation  and  of  various  other  items  in  connec- 
tion with  the  support  of  schools. 

(3)  The  actual  expenditures  made  during  that  year  for  the  transportation 

of  children  to  the  schools  of  that  town. 

(4)  The  actual  expenditures,  if  any,  made  during  that  year  for  the  tuition 

and  transportation  of  children  to  elementary  schools  in  adjoining 
cities  or  towns. 

"In  determining  the  assured  minimum,  expenditures  or  allowances  for  state- 
aided  vocational  education  shall  not  be  included. 

"*Section  11.  Each  town  whose  valuation  is  less  than  five  hundred  thousand 
dollars  shall  receive  one  half  of  the  assured  minimum  in  case  the  assured  mini- 
mum is  greater  than  the  amount  that  would  have  accrued  from  a  tax  of  ten 
dollars  per  thousand  dollars  valuation.  If  the  assured  minimum  in  such  a  town 
is  less  than  the  proceeds  of  such  a  ten  dollar  tax,  but  greater  than  the  proceeds 
of  a  five  dollar  tax,  the  town  shall  receive  the  amount  by  which  the  assured 
minimum  exceeds  the  proceeds  of  such  a  five  dollar  tax. 

"*Section  12.  Each  town  whose  valuation  is  less  than  one  million  dollars  but 
not  less  than  five  hundred  thousand  dollars  shall  be  allotted  one-third  of  the 
assured  minimum  in  case  the  assured  minimum  is  greater  than  the  amount 
that  would  have  accrued  from  a  tax  of  seven  and  one-half  dollars  per  thousand 
dollars  of  valuation.  If  the  assured  minimum  in  such  a  town  is  less  than  the 
proceeds  of  such  tax  of  seven  and  one-half  dollars,  but  greater  than  the  proceeds 
of  a  five  dollar  tax,  the  town  shall  be  allotted  the  amount  by  which  the  assured 
minimum  exceeds  the  proceeds  of  such  a  five  dollar  tax.  Said  allotments  shall 
be  paid  in  full  in  case  their  sum  does  not  exceed  the  amount  available  after 
making  the  payments  provided  for  by  section  11,  otherwise  they  shall  be 
reduced  proportionally  so  much  as  may  be  necessary. 

"*Section  13.  Each  town  whose  valuation  is  less  than  two  million  five  hundred 
thousand  dollars,  but  not  less  than  one  million  dollars,  shall  be  allotted  one-half 
of  the  amount  by  which  the  assured  minimum  exceeds  the  amount  that  would 
have  accrued  from  a  tax  of  five  dollars  per  thousand  dollars  of  valuation.    If 

•Massachusetts  Educational  Leffislation  Enacted  in  1919,  Bulletin  of  the  Board  of  Education, 
1919,  No.  6,  Whole  No.  108,  pp.  32-33. 


74 

the  sum  of  the  said  allotments  exceeds  the  balance  of  the  income  of  the  fund 
available  after  the  distribution  provided  for  by  sections  eleven  and  twelve, 
then  the  treasurer  and  receiver-general  shall  add  to  said  balance,  from  the 
proceeds  of  the  income  tax,  the  amount  required,  but  shall  not  add  more  than 
two  hundred  thousand  dollars  in  any  one  year.  In  any  year  in  which  the  addi- 
tion of  said  two  hundred  thousand  dollars  does  not  permit  of  the  payment  of 
said  allotments  in  full,  the  treasurer  shall  add  said  two  hundred  thousand  dollars 
and  make  the  payments  to  the  several  towns  proportional  to  their  allotments." 

Effects  of  Operation  of  "Ability  and  Effort  Plan." 

The  effects  of  the  operation  of  this  Ability  and  Effort  Plan  in 
giving  General  Aid  are  shown  in  Table  27  (page  75)  for  fourth 
class  districts  in  eight  typical  counties  in  widely  scattered  sections 
of  the  state.  Some  of  these,  such  as  Lancaster  and  Washington, 
are  wealthy,  others,  such  as  Forest  and  Sullivan,  are  poor.  Some 
of  them  are  in  farming  regions,  others  in  the  mountains;  some  are 
agricultural  centers  and  others  are  mining  centers;  some  are  well 
settled,  others  are  sparsely  settled.  Table  28  (page  78)  gives 
similar  data  for  all  third  class  districts  and  Table  29  (page  79)  for 
all  first  and  second  class  districts. 

It  will  be  noticed  in  looking  over  these  tables  that  while  the 
Edmonds  Act  gives  increases  in  aid  over  and  above  that  granted 
by  the  Woodruff  Act  in  almost  every  instance,  the  amounts 
granted  under  the  Ability  and  Effort  Plan  give  certain  districts 
less  and  others  more  and  that  there  are  many  cases  in  which  there 
are  great  differences  in  grants  from  those  under  the  Edmonds  Act. 

If  careful  comparison  is  made  of  the  amounts  of  these  grants 
with  the  true  valuations  per  teacher  and  the  local  tax  rates  that 
it  would  be  necessary  to  levy  it  will  be  observed  that  low  valuations 
and  high  tax  rates  each  have  the  effect  of  raising  the  amounts  of 
the  grants,  while  high  valuations  and  low  tax  rates  each  have  the 
effect  of  lowering  it.  It  follows  that  the  largest  grants  are  those 
in  which  there  is  a  combination  of  low  valuations  and  high  tax 
rates  and  the  smallest  grants  where  there  is  a  combination  of  high 
valuations  and  low  tax  rates. 


75 


TABLE  27. 

Grants  Under  the  Ability  and  Effort  Plan  Compared  With  the 

Grants  Under  the  Woodruff  and  Edmonds  Acts  in  Typical 

Fourth  Class  Districts  of  Clearfield  County. 


NAME 

OF 

DISTRICT 

True  val- 
uation per 
teacher 
in 
thousands 

True  tax 

rate 
current 
expenses 

only 
(mills) 

Current 
expense 

per 
teacher 

Aid 

under 

Woodruff 

Act 

Aid 

under 

Edmonds 

Act 

Aid 
under 
Ability 

and 
Effort 

Plan 

Bell  Township 

Boggs  Township 

Brisbin  Boro 

$117 
54 
84 
52 
54 
44 

126 
74 
75 
65 
80 
3 
76 

191 
49 

6.01 
9.49 
6.89 
6.45 
6.09 
4.59 
2.65 
4.98 
7.55 
5.46 
6.01 
2.41 
7.85 
8.24 
5.56 

$1,112 

1,756 

1,272 

1,193 

1,126 

849 

491 

922 

1,398 

1,011 

1,112 

446 

1,450 

1,524 

1,028 

$175 
187 
264 
240 
272 
158 
155 
171 
110 
182 
220 
104 
193 
270 
133 

$349 
356 
333 
396 
390 
300 
315 
329 
350 
379 
350 
150 
296 
492 
328 

$     407 

1,245 
695 

758 

Covington  Township 

Ferguson  Township 

Goshen  Township 

Greenwood  Township 

Huston  Township 

Karthans  Township 

Lumber  City  Boro 

New  Washington  Boro .... 

798 
637 
156 
514 
833 
661 
631 
439 
855 

77 

756 

Fourth  Class  Districts  of  Delaware  County. 


NAME 
OF 

district 

True  val- 
uation per 
teacher 
in 
thousands 

True  tax 

rate 

current 

expenses 

only 

(mills) 

Current 
expense 

per 
teacher 

Aid 

under 

Woodruff 

Act 

Aid 

under 

Edmonds 

Act 

Aid 
under 
Ability 

and 
Effort 
Plan 

Aldan  Boro 

Birmingham  Township .... 

CoUingdale  Boro 

Darby  Township 

Edgemont  Township 

Lower-Chichester 

Middletown  Township 

Nether-Providence 

Parkside  Boro 

Ridley  Park  Boro 

Springfield  Township 

$341 

343 

295 

285 

35 

35 

275 

430 

384 

95 

217 

16.4 

9.58 
13.5 
12.6 
9.5 
11.75 
10.7 
10.5 
13.8 
11.9 
12.4 

$3,045 
1,772 
2,610 
2,330 
1,760 
2,170 
1,977 
1,940 
2,544 
2,206 
2,295 

$282 
329 
294 
298 
206 
118 
268 
228 

'157 
311 

$475 
390 
674 
513 
413 
308 
420 
594 
879 
538 
517 

$     98 

58 

94 

88 

1,427 

1,758 

74 

53 

83 

1,075 

87 

76 


TABLE  27— Continued. 
Fourth  Class  Districts  of  Forest  County. 


NAME 

OF 

DISTRICT 

True  val- 
uation per 
teacher 
in 
thousands 

True  tax 

rate 

current 

expenses 

only 

(mills) 

Current 
expense 

per 
teacher 

Aid 

under 

Woodruff 

Act 

Aid 

under 

Edmonds 

Act 

Aid 

under 

Ability 

and 

Effort 

Plan 

Barnett  Township 

Harmony  Township 

$  28 

63 

164 

52 

120 

4.65 

6.07 

7.57 

5.4 

6.7 

$     855 
1,125 
1,400 
1,000 
1,250 

$143 
250 
300 
250 
250 

$287 
375 
400 
415 
500 

$725 
743 
159 

Kingsley  Township 

Tionesta  Township 

720 
446 

Fourth  Class  Districts  of  Fulton  County. 


NAME 

OF 

DISTRICT 

True  val- 
uation per 
teacher 
in 
thousands 

True  tax 

rate 
current 
expenses 

only 
(mills) 

Current 
expense 

per 
teacher 

Aid 

under 

Woodruff 

Act 

Aid 

under 

Edmonds 

Act 

Aid 
under 
Ability 

and 
Effort 
Plan 

$106 
87 
58 
134 
65 
48 

4.78 
4.65 
6.70 
9.46 
3.87 
5.41 

$     885 

860 

1,250 

1,750 

715 

1,000 

$223 
143 
250 
250 
143 
250 

$333 
287 
500 
750 
429 
250 

$378 

455 

Dublin  Township 

McConnelsburg 

Thompson 

863 
482 
463 
740 

Fourth  Class  Districts  of  Lancaster  County. 


True  val- 

True tax 

Current 

Aid 

Aid 

Aid 

name 

uation  per 

rate 

expense 

under 

under 

under 

OF 

teacher 

current 

per 

Woodruff 

Edmonds 

Ability 

DISTRICT 

m 
thousands 

expenses 
only 
(mills) 

teacher 

Act 

Act 

and 

Effort 

Plan 

Adamstown  Boro 

$  91 

7.55 

$1,400 

$250 

$500 

$     813 

Brecknock  Township 

74 

5.06 

937 

183 

366 

563 

132 
100 

5.65 
6.07 

1,045 
1,125 

200 
183 

800 
366 

299 

Conay  Township 

154 

237 

5  85 

1,085 

200 

333 

41 

East  Dumore  Township .  .  . 

116 

6.14 

1,135 

223 

333 

460 

East  Lampeter  Township .  . 

220 

6.3 

1,165 

266 

400 

44 

Elizabethtown  Boro 

117 

7.42 

1,370 

250 

500 

689 

110 
128 

5.37 
4.6 

995 

852 

183 

366 

404 

Lincoln  Independent  Boro. . 

263 

135 

70 

209 

8.3 

7.65 

6.27 

1,540 
1,415 
1,160 

267 
183 
231 

465 
454 
385 

1,075 

879 

Mount  Joy  Township 

44 

New  Millton  Independent 

274 
142 

6.25 
5.9 

1,156 
1,090 

200 

187 

300 
375 

44 

Paradise  Township 

253 

Providence  Township 

142 

5.68 

1,049 

250 

375 

242 

Ladsbury  Township 

126 

7.25 

1,345 

143 

283 

431 

Strasburg  Township 

217 

8.1 

1,.501 

400 

600 

57 

Warwick  Township 

150 

6.58 

1,218 

177 

412 

231 

West  Donegal  Township . .  . 

153 

6.78 

1,252 

250 

375 

235 

West  Lampeter  Townshin. . 

195 

13.8 

2,560 

728 

727 

110 

I 


77 

TABLE  27— Concluded. 
Fourth  Class  Districts  of  Sullivan  County. 


NAME 

OF 

DISTRICT 

True  val- 
uation per 
teacher 
in 
thousands 

True  tax 

rate 

current 

expenses 

only 

(mills) 

Current 
expense 

per 
teacher 

Aid 
under 
Woodruff 
Act 

Aid 

under 

Edmonds 

Act 

Aid 
under 
Ability 
and 
Effort 
Plan 

$  52 
151 
144 
41 
57 
22 
34 

6.05 
5.04 
6.61 
7.35 
4.82 
6.05 
6.00 

$1,201 
933 
1,223 
1.357 
895 
1,119 
1,110 

$238 
185 
233 
129 
206 
200 
225 

$505 
368 
400 
409 
439 
380 
439 

$     886 

Davidson  Township 

171 
272 

1,047 

620 

986 

Shrewsbury  Township 

906 

Fourth  Class  Districts  of  Tioga  County. 


NAME 
OF 

district 

True  val- 
uation per 
teacher 
in 
thousands 

True  tax 

rate 
current 
expenses 

only 
(mills) 

Current 
expense 

per 
teacher 

Aid 

under 

Woodruff 

Act 

Aid 

under 

Edmonds 

Act 

Aid 

under 

AbiUty 

and 

Effort 

Plan 

$  18 
99 

484 
45 
4 
37 
79 
77 
40 
24 

117 
37 
76 
64 

7.57 
14.6 

6;2' 

■6;47 
6.2 
5.41 
7.02 
8.1 
9.45 
7.02 
8.1 
6.75 

$1,400 
2.700 

iliso 
'i;2o6 

1,150 
1,000 
1,300 
1,500 
1,750 
1,300 
1,500 
1.250 

$200 
500 

3000 
200 

200 
200 
143 
287 
166 
250 
287 
500 
250 

$416 
700 

2000 
400 

'400 
400 
285 
571 
500 
500 
704 
500 
333 

$1,264 

Charleston  Township 

Covington  Township 

Duncan  Township 

Elkland  Township 

Hamilton  Township 

Lawrence  Township 

853 

'87i 

"gei 

660 

583 

977 

Putnam  Township 

Rutland  Township 

1.020 

686 

1,040 

885 

Westfield  Township 

818 

Fourth  Class  Districts  of  Washington  County. 


NAME 

OF 

DISTRICT 


True  val- 
uation per 
teacher 
in 
thousands 


True  tax 

rate 
current 
expenses 

only 
(mills) 


Current 
expense 

per 
teacher 


Aid 

under 

Woodruff 

Act 


Aid 

under 

Edmonds 

Act 


Aid 
under 
Ability 

and 
Effort 
Plan 


Beallsville  Boro 

Blaine  Township 

California  Boro 

Centcrville  Boro 

Cokesburg  Boro 

Deemston  Boro 

East-Bethlehem  Township 

Elco  Boro 

Finleyville  Boro 

Houston  Boro 

Long-Branch  Boro 

Marianna  Boro 

Midway  Boro 

Murdocksvillc.  Ind 

North-Franklin 

Petf>ra  Township 

Somerset  Township 

Speers  Boro 

Union.  Ind 

Weat-Bethlohom 

West-Middleton 


$221 
143 
223 
269 

37 
405 
425 

59 

17 
144 
1.59 
140 
188 

13 
152 
423 
562 
142 
461 
332 

52 


9.85 
6.83 
9.54 
9 .  54 
7.84 
6.27 
8.62 
7.86 
7.95 

12.15 
8.12 
8.89 
7.44 
4.32 
8.18 

13.40 
9.26 

10.58 
7.57 
5.34 
6.25 


$1,825 
1,264 
1.775 
1,765 
1,450 
1,160 
1,595 
1,455 
1,471 
2,247 
1 ,  502 
1.645 
1,371 
799 
1,512 
2,413 
1,713 
1.957 
1.400 
988 
1,156 


$236 
174 
252 
282 
137 
239 
240 
268 
252 
259 
248 
219 
776 
146 
198 
235 
179 
212 
198 
986 
2.58 


$483 
397 
488 
414 
435 
360 
471 
400 
405 
450 
320 
419 
425 
300 
346 
.542 
372 
400 
300 
379 
320 


$     69 

292 

67 

67 

1,160 

31 

43 

991 

1,336 

498 

211 

540 

37 

744 

269 

67 

37 

455 

38 

32 

831 


78 

TABLE  28. 

Grants  Under  the  Ability  and  Effort  Plan  Compared  With  the 

Grants  Under  the  Woodruff  and  Edmonds  Acts  in  Typical 

Third  Class  Districts  of  Clearfield  County. 


True  val- 

True tax 

Current 

Aid 

Aid 

Aid 

NAME 

uation  per 

rate 

expense 

under 

under 

under 

OF 

teacher 

current 

per 

Woodruff 

Edmonds 

Ability 

DISTRICT 

in 
thousands 

expenses 

only 

(mills) 

teacher 

Act 

Act 

and 
Effort 
Plan 

Clearfield  Boro 

$135 

7.43 

$1,375 

$235 

344 

$372 

Cooper  Township 

60 

4.78 

889 

206 

269 

602 

128 
69 

7.53 
4.68 

1,395 
866 

285 
221 

348 
281 

431 

Morris  Township 

543 

101 

4.63 

861 

204 

320 

393 

Third  Class  Districts  of  Delaware  County. 


NAME 
OF 

district 

True  val- 
uation per 
teacher 
in 
thousands 

True  tax 

rate 
current 
expenses 

only 
(mills) 

Current 
expense 

per 
teacher 

Aid 

under 

Woodruff 

Act 

Aid 

under 

Edmonds 

Act 

Aid 
under 

Ability 
and 

Effort 
Plan 

Darby  Boro 

Haverford  Township 

Marcus  Hook  Boro 

Radnor  Township 

Ridley  Township 

Upper  Darby  Township .  .  . 

$214 
665 
186 
385 
272 
119 

7.10 
7.84 
7.38 
10.88 
8.57 
8.97 

$1,315 
1,451 
1,366 
2,013 
1,587 
1,660 

$122 
219 
180 
206 
227 
190 

$350 
348 
334 
343 
305 
350 

$  50 
24 
59 
65 
60 
593 

Third  Class  Districts  of  Lancaster  County. 


NAME 

OF 

DISTRICT 

True  val- 
uation per 
teacher 
in 
thousands 

True  tax 

rate 

current 

expenses 

only 

(mills) 

Current 
expense 

per 
teacher 

Aid 

under 

Woodruff 

Act 

Aid 

under 

Edmonds 

Act 

Aid 
under 
Ability 

and 
Effort 

Plan 

$143 

7.44 

$1,377 

$252 

$348 

$313 

Third  Class  Districts  of  Washington  County. 


NAME 
OF 

'  district 

True  val- 
uation per 
teacher 
in 
thousands 

True  tax 

rate 
current 
expenses 

only 
(mills) 

Current 
expense 

per 
teacher 

Aid 

under 

Woodruff 

Act 

Aid 

under 

Edmonds 

Act 

Aid 
under 
Ability 

and 
Effort 

Plan 

Canonsburg  Boro .... 

$114 
136 
105 
193 
122 
105 
124 
117 
123 

5.05 
7.51 
7.40 
4.99 
6.58 
6.04 
7.10 
7.60 
8.04 

$     935 
1,390 
1,369 
924 
1,218 
1,118 
1,314 
1,407 
1,488 

$165 
219 
235 
183 
214 
221 
240 
148 
235 

$309 
292 
343 
272 
337 
336 
365 
277 
335 

$359 
369 

Cecil  Township 

Charleroi  Boro 

592 

Chartiers  Township 

Donora  Boro 

40 
415 
484 
434 
518 
499 

E.  Pike  Run  Township .... 

Monongahela  City 

Smith  Township 

Washington  Boro 

79 


TABLE  29. 

Grants  Under  the  Ability  and  Effort  Plan  Compared  With  the 

Grants   Under   the   Woodruff  and   Edmonds  Acts   in 

First  and  Second  Class  Districts. 


NAME 

OF 

DISTRICT 

True  val- 
uation per 
teacher 

True  tax 

rate 

current 

expenses 

only 

(mills) 

Current 
expense 

per 
teacher 

Aid 

under 

Woodruff 

Act 

Aid 

under 

Edmonds 

Act 

Aid 
under 
Ability 

and 
Effort 

Plan 

First  Class 

Philadelphia 

Pittsburgh 

$439,361 
302,125 

241,509 

193,615 
325,630 
415,076 
235,241 
215,502 
252,748 
126,096 
163,797 
308,123 
316,499 
186,955 
176,594 
196,137 
177,406 
287,326 
154,255 
185,156 

15.29 
15.51 

11.57 

8.70 

7.34 
10.18 
13.37 
13.87 
12.59 

7.35 
10.82 
10.85 
11.68 

6.97 
10.37 
11.05 
11.78 
11.30 
12.18 
10.81 

$2,829 
2,870 

2,142 

1,610 
1,358 
1,885 
2,800 
2,567 
2,330 
1,360 
2,002 
2.008 
2,162 
1,290 
1,920 
2,045 
2,180 
2,091 
2,253 
2,001 

$262 
221 

283 

270 
281 
344 
274 
222 
237 
297 
232 
281 
239 
223 
252 
279 
299 
276 
252 
249 

$300 
300 

350 

350 
350 
350 
350 
350 
350 
350 
350 
350 
350 
350 
350 
350 
350 
350 
350 
350 

$  76 
93 

Second  Class 

AUentown 

71 
70 

44 

Chester 

51 

78 

Erie 

97 

Harrisburg 

88 
434 

Johnstown 

239 
71 

70 

New  Castle 

54 

75 

88 

95 

79 

Williamsport 

378 

York 

86 

80 

It  is  impossible  to  prepare  a  table  which  will  show  clearly 
the  exact  relation  between  these  three  factors.  Table  30  is 
presented,  however,  to  show  the  relationship  between  the  size  of 
the  grants  and  the  valuations  in  the  fourth  class  districts  con- 
tained in  Table  27.  This  may  be  compared  with  Table  14  and  the 
differences  observed.  In  the  latter  table  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
smaller  grants  come  as  a  rule  to  the  wealthier  districts  and  the 
larger  grants  to  the  poorer  districts,  in  direct  opposition  to  the 
results  of  the  distribution  of  funds  to  those  districts  according  to 
the  terms  of  the  Edmonds  Act. 

TABLE  30. 

Relationship  Between  the  True  Valuation  per  Teacher  and 
State  Aid  to  be  Received  under  the  Ability  and 
Effort  Plan  in  Typical  Fourth  Class 
Districts  of  Selected  Counties. 


True 

STATE  AID  UNDER  ABILITY  AND  EFFORT  PLAN 

valuation 
per   teacher 

in 
thouflands 

A 

1 

en 
1 

o 

1 

1 
O 

o 

a-. 

A 

CTJ 

n 

1 
o 

CO 

Ol 

o 
n 

n 
1 

S 
1 

1 
c 

05 
t 

1 

o 

o> 
1 

s 

2 

J_ 

c 
CO 

1 
1 

to 

1 
c: 

1 
1 
1 

O: 
t^ 

1 

O 

o 
t^ 

1 
1 

1 

1 

1 

1 
c 

i 

2 

00 

i 

1 
1 
1 

ai 

X 

1 

o 

1 
2 

3 

1 

o 
o 
0-. 

Ol 

1 
o 

2 
i 

o 

1 

1 
1 

Ol 

c 

1 

o 

o 

Ol 

A 

o 

Ol 
Ol 

7 

c 

Ol 

o 

p 

Ol 
Ol 

A 
i 

Ol 

o 
o 

i 

Ol 

n 

n 

> 

o 

■a 

o 

o 

2 

- 

3 

o 
H 

$  0-        9 
lO-      19 
20-       29 
30-       39 
40-       49 
50-       59 
60-       69 
70-       79 
80-       89 
90-       99 

100-     109 

1 
3 
2 
7 
6 
9 
4 
8 
3 
3 
2 

110-     119 
120-     129 
130-     139 
140-     149 
150-     159 
160-     169 
180-     189 
190-     199 
200-     209 
210-     219 
220-     229 
230-     239 
260-     269 
270-     279 
280-     289 
290-     299 
330-     339 
340-     349 
380-     389 
400-     409 
420-     429 
430-     439 
460-     469 
470-     479 
560-     569 
670-     679 

1 

1 

1 

i 

1 

1 

1 
1 

10 

[  ] 

1 

2 

2 

1 
1 
1 
1 

2 
1 

1 
1 

14 

1 

1 

2 

1 

5 

1 

2 
3 

1 
1 

3 
1 

6 

1 

2 
2 

5 

2 
6 

2 

1 
3 

3 

4 

5 

3 

4 

7 

1 

4 

3 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

5 
"l 

Total.... 

98 

Median  True  Valuation  in  Thousands.  $114,000. 
Median  State  Aid.  $483. 


81 


Special  Aid  Under  the  Proposed  New  Plan. 

Various  forms  of  Special  Aid  should  be  established  in  addition 
to  General  Aid  as  outlined  above  in  order  to  encourage  districts 
to  undertake  worthy  projects  which  ordinarily  they  would  not 
enter  upon  without  some  inducement  from  outside  their  own 
resources.  The  state  of  Pennsylvania  already  has  two  excellent  forms 
of  Special  Aid;  viz.,  granting  one-half  the  cost  of  transportation  to 
approved  consolidated  schools  and  the  payment  of  $200  to  school 
districts  for  each  building  abandoned  since  the  year  1911.  Both  of 
these  should  be  retained.  There  is  also  provision  in  the  law  for 
aid  to  special  classes,  but  as  yet  no  adequate  appropriation  has 
been  made  for  this  purpose.  This  provision  should  be  retained 
and  proper  appropriation  made.  In  addition  to  this  it  is  very 
much  desired  that  the  following  forms  of  Special  Aid  be  added: 

1.  High  Schools.  In  order  to  encourage  the  establishment 
of  new  high  schools  and  the  expansion  of  present  high 
schools  in  poor  districts,  it  is  recommended  that  the  state 
grant  $100  annually  for  each  new  or  additional  teacher 
employed.  This  amount,  together  with  the  increased 
appropriation  that  comes  to  such  districts  by  reason  of  the 
increase  in  the  number  of  teachers,  should  provide  a 
sufficient  inducement  for  the  provision  of  the  right  number 
of  teachers  and  should  also  encourage  the  high  school  to 
take  in  pupils  from  outside  of  the  districts  in  which  they 
are  situated.  This  form  of  aid  should  be  limited  to  20 
years. 

2.  Erection  of  School  Houses  in  consolidated  districts 
and  of  teacherages  in  poor  districts  outside  of  boroughs. 
This  aid  should  be  based  upon  the  valuation  per  teacher 
and  in  the  following  amounts: 

Less  than  $  50,000  25  per  cent  of  cost  of  building  and  equipment 
50,000—  99,000  20  " 
100,000—  149,000  15  " 
150,000—  199,000  10  " 
200,000—  249,000  5  " 
250,000— and  over     0    " 

This  aid  should  be  subject  in  each  case  to  the  approval 
of  the  State  Department  of  Education,  both  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  location  of  the  site  and  the  plans  of 
the  building,  and  also  from  the  point  of  view  of  whether 
the  erection  of  such  a  building  in  such  a  place  is  best 
adapted  to  prom^oting  the  best  educational  advantages  for 
the  children  of  the  entire  community.  It  is  not  intended 
that  this  state  aid  shall  be  given  to  assist  in  the  erection 


82 

of  buildings  that  satisfy  needs  of  small  groups  of  children, 
unless  this  is  unavoidable. 

3.  Transportation. — Aid  for  purchase  of  trucks  and  wagons 
for  transportation  purposes  in  consolidated  districts. 
Efficient  and  adequate  provision  for  transportation  of 
school  children  is  just  as  important  as  proper  housing  in 
rural  districts.  Experience  has  shown  that  inhabitants  of 
such  districts  are  not  inclined  to  make  the  proper  provision 
in  this  particular.  State  aid  is,  therefore,  necessary  to 
promote  the  best  interest  of  the  state  as  a  whole.  It  is 
recommended  that  aid  be  granted  in  such  proportions  as 
is  provided  for  school  houses,  teacherages,  etc.,  given  in 
the  paragraph  above. 

4.  Transportation  Aid. — The  intention  back  of  the  present 
law  regarding  aid  for  transportation,  one-half  of  that 
expended  by  the  local  districts  up  to  an  amount  of  $3,000 
is  worthy  of  praise.  This  form  of  aid  would  be  much 
improved,  however,  if  the  amount  granted  would  be 
adjusted  to  the  true  valuations  of  the  districts  to  which 
aid  is  given.  It  is  recommended,  therefore,  that  the  per- 
cent of  the  expenses  to  be  paid  by  the  state  be  made 
dependent  upon  the  deficiency  in  equalized  valuations 
below  the  standard  equalized  valuation  per  teacher  in 
accordance  with  the  following  schedule: 

Percent  of  Ex- 
Equalized  Valuation  pense  to  be 
Per  Teacher                                                                        Paid  by  State 

$  0,000-    9,000 95 

10,000-  19,000 90 

20,000-  29,000 85 

30,000-  39,000 80 

40,000-  49,000 75 

50,000-  59,000 70 

60,000-  69,000 65 

70,000-  79,000 60 

80,000-  89,000 55 

90,000-  99,000 50 

100,000-109,000 45 

110,000-119,000 40 

120,000-129,000 35 

130,000-139,000 30 

140,000-149,000 25 

150,000-159,000 20 

160,000-169,000 15 

170,000-179,000 10 

180,000-189,000 5 


83 

4.  Teachers  in  Outlying  Rural  Schools. — It  seems 
impossible  to  get  teachers  of  superior  qualifications  to 
teach  in  the  rural  communities  for  the  same  salaries  as  are 
paid  in  boroughs.  It  is  recommended,  therefore,  that  the 
state  assist  the  rural  districts  in  securing  teachers  of  high 
qualifications  by  adding  a  direct  grant  to  the  salaries  of 
normal  school  graduates  or  to  those  with  equivalent  educa- 
tion who  teach  in  outlying  one-room  rural  schools.  This 
amount  may  well  be  fixed  at  $10  per  month  for  the  first 
year,  $15  per  month  for  the  second  year  and  $17  and  $20 
per  month  for  the  third  and  fourth  years.  The  poor 
quality  of  the  instruction  given  in  the  one-room  rural 
schools  of  Pennsylvania  and  of  other  states  is  one  of  the 
most  serious  shortcomings  in  our  public  school  system. 
Some  such  liberal  provision  as  this  is  necessary  in  order  to 
remedy  the  situation. 

5.  Abandonment  of  School  Buildings  in  Rural  Dis- 
tricts.— The  present  grant  of  $200  per  year  for  school 
buildings  practically  abandoned  should  be  reduced  to  $100 
and  continued  until  such  time  as  the  desirability  of  con- 
solidation of  schools  is  more  generally  appreciated  than 
at  present. ' 

6.  Supervision. — In  order  to  encourage  weaker  districts 
to  employ  supervising  principals,  it  is  recommended  that 
the  state  grant  to  such  districts  $800  per  year  toward  the 
salary  of  those  supervisors  giving  their  full  time  to  super- 
vision ;  this  grant  to  be  limited  to  a  period  of  twenty  years. 

Ivfodifications  to  Meet  Probable  Objection  of  the 
Wealthier  Districts. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  plan  for  General  Aid  as  outlined  above 
favors  the  less  wealthy  districts  of  the  state  and  that  if  adopted, 
the  wealthier  districts  would  not  receive  as  much  as  under 
the  present  plan.  It  is  believed  that  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
state  as  a  whole,  more  liberal  aid  to  these  latter  districts  than 
that  which  is  granted  above  is  not  necessary.  Inasmuch,  however, 
as  such  districts  are  often  able  to  influence  the  Legislature  to  an 
unusual  degree,  conditions  may  develop  which  will  make  it 
advisable  that  their  demands  be  met. 

The  wealthier  districts,  particularly  the  cities  having  manufac- 
turing centers,  are  inclined  to  claim  that  they  pay  the  larger  propor- 
tion of  the  taxes  that  support  the  state  government  and  that 


84 

they  are,  therefore,  entitled  to  a  considerable  share  of  the  proceeds 
of  the  taxes.  This  point  of  view  is  local  and  provincial.  It  does 
not  recognize  the  true  relation  of  the  citizen  to  the  state  nor  is  it 
one  that  should  be  encouraged  by  the  State  Legislature.  The 
interests  of  the  country  and  the  city  are  so  interdependent  that 
the  money  of  all  should  be  expended  in  such  a  way  as  to  promote 
the  good  of  all  rather  than  of  either  group. 

The  way  suggested  to  meet  such  a  contingency  as  this  is  to 
preserve  the  plan  of  General  Aid  as  proposed  above  but  to  com- 
bine with  it  a  plan  involving  a  state  tax  which  is  virtually  a  local 
tax  and  the  redistribution  of  such  revenue  back  to  the  districts 
in  much  the  same  proportion  as  it  was  paid  into  the  State  Treas- 
ury. Such  money  should  best  come  from  a  new  form  of  taxation, 
as  a  state  tax  upon  general  property  or  a  tax  upon  manufacturing 
corporations.  Any  other  form  of  taxation  which  would  be  paid  in 
by  the  local  districts  in  much  the  same  proportion  as  it  is  proposed 
to  pay  it  out  would  be  equally  good  from  our  standpoint  for 
schools.  Approximately  $5,000,000  would  be  required  for  this 
purpose  in  order  to  grant  the  wealthier  districts  the  amount  they 
now  receive. 

There  is,  in  fact,  more  to  be  said  in  favor  of  such  a  measure  than 
appears  upon  the  surface.  The  costs  of  schools  in  the  cities  have 
increased  to  a  marked  degree  in  recent  years,  due  not  only  to  the 
demands  of  teachers  for  increased  salaries,  but  also  to  the  activities 
of  various  associations  interested  in  the  welfare  of  the  schools.  •The 
local  taxpayers  as  a  group  and  those  charged  with  the  responsibil- 
ities of  local  government  have  not  always  been  in  agreement  with 
the  first  named  groups.  It  has  been  easier,  therefore,  to  secure 
increases  of  salaries  through  state  legislation  and  the  grants  of 
state  money  than  through  local  legislation  and  local  tax  rates. 
Such  a  situation  and  such  an  outcome  has  taken  place  in  New 
York  state,  but  it  happened  that  in  that  state  at  the  same  time 
teachers  in  cities  secured  large  increases  in  salaries  through 
increased  grants,  the  state  imposed  a  mill  and  a  half  tax,  which 
taking  the  cities  as  a  group,  fully  repaid  the  state  for  the  amount 
that  it  had  to  pay  out  to  these  cities. 

When  the  Edmonds  Act  was  passed  two  years  ago  there  were 
no  such  increased  revenues,  inasmuch  as  the  increased  salaries  for 
teachers  were  necessary.    As  these  increases  were  not  excessive. 


85 

it  would  appear  to  be  a  wise  policy  on  the  part  of  the  state  now  to 
levy  such  a  tax  as  would  make  it  possible  for  the  people  of  the 
cities  to  secure  by  an  indirect  method  the  increased  amounts  of 
money  required.  The  salaries  of  the  teachers  ought  not  to  be 
low  and  choice  must,  therefore,  be  made  between  a  large  increase 
in  the  local  tax  in  cities  and  such  a  state  tax  as  would  come  very 
largely  from  those  cities,  the  major  portion  of  which  would  go  back 
to  them  through  the  method  of  distribution  here  suggested.  Cer- 
tainly it  is  true  that  the  less  wealthy  fourth  and  third  class  dis- 
tricts and  certain  second  class  districts  should  have  the  first  call 
upon  the  state  appropriations  and  that  the  wealthier  first  and 
sedond  class  cities  and  the  twenty-five  percent  of  the  wealthier 
third  and  fourth  class  districts  should  not  be  entitled  to  funds 
until  after  the  needier  group  has  been  supplied. 

Has  the  State  Aid  Plan  Herein  Proposed  Satisfied  the 
Principles  That  Should  Govern  State  Aid? 

Having  set  up  these  principles  whereby  state  aid  for  schools 
should  be  judged,  it  is  now  desirable  that  the  plan  herein  proposed 
be  tested  out  in  accordance  with  them.  Inasmuch  as  it  responds 
immediately  and  proportionately  to  any  change  in  the  ability  of 
the  school  district  to  support  the  type  of  school  it  is  maintaining, 
it  satisfies  the  first  principle.  Should  there  be  any  change,  either 
in  the  number  of  teachers  affecting  the  size  of  the  school  or  in  the 
value  of  the  taxable  property,  the  effect  will  be  manifest  at  once 
in  the  determination  of  the  corresponding  tax  rate. 

The  second  principle  requires  that  state  aid  be  adjusted  to  the 
amount  of  effort  required  by  local  districts  to  support  schools  as 
revealed  in  the  costs  and  tax  rates.  In  the  plan  here  proposed  the 
very  close  relationship  between  these  two  factors  is  maintained 
throughout  and  any  change  in  the  costs  and  its  corresponding  tax 
rate  affects  immediately  and  proportionately  the  amount  of  state 
aid. 

The  third  principle,  which  requires  that  districts  be  rewarded 
for  undertaking  some  new  feature,  is  satisfied  by  the  grants  of  the 
various  forms  of  Special  Aid. 

The  fourth  principle,  which  requires  that  it  promote  the  best 
education  for  evfery  child  in  the  state,  is  satisfied  in  that  aid  of  some 


86 

amount  in  proportion  to  the  Ability  and  Effort  Plan  extends  to 
every  district. 

The  fifth  principle  requires  that  the  local  districts  be  left  to 
determine  their  own  policies  so  long  as  they  comply  with  the 
minimum  and  maximum  standards  fixed  by  state  law.  At  the 
same  time,  it  lays  considerable  stress  on  giving  the  largest  possible 
freedom  to  local  districts  and  upon  the  importance  of  school 
districts  making  advances  by  their  own  action,  even  though  they 
are  encouraged  to  do  so  by  some  financial  benefit  which  may  come 
from  the  state,  rather  than  to  have  the  district  compelled  to  change 
its  plans  and  methods  of  administration  by  the  force  of  state  law 
or  the  requirements  of  the  State  Education  Department. 

While  this  principle  cannot  operate  in  its  greatest  efficiency  so 
long  as  increments  in  salaries  above  the  minimum  salary  and  the 
standards  for  rating  teachers  to  secure  these  increments  are  fixed 
by  state  law,  nevertheless  it  is  believed  that  a  minimum  state 
salary  schedule,  such  as  is  embodied  in  the  Edmonds  Act,  is  neces- 
sary in  Pennsylvania  at  the  present  time.  It  will  prove  helpful 
in  the  realization  of  the  very  worthy  plan  of  the  State  Superin- 
tendent of  Public  Instruction  to  speedily  advance  the  qualifica- 
tions of  teachers  throughout  the  entire  state.  On  the  other  hand 
it  is  believed  that  it  has  been  the  cause  of  maladjustments  and 
difficulties  which  have  arisen  and  that  wastes  which  have  resulted 
could  have  been  minimized  and  largely  removed  had  the  adminis- 
tration of  schools  in  the  various  cities  been  properly  supported  by 
the  people.  These  maladjustments  and  wastes  are  of  less  impor- 
tance than  the  providing  of  those  conditions  which  will  make  for 
one  of  the  most  able  and  efficient  state  group  of  teachers  in  the 
entire  country.  The  authority  to  adjust  salaries  above  the 
minimum  should  be  given  back  to  the  local  school  districts  after 
this  end  has  been  accomplished. 

The  importance  of  this  is  borne  out  by  the  following  considera- 
tion: 

As  the  costs  of  schools  increase,  their  management  must  show  a 
corresponding  increase  in  efficiency,  and  eventually  the  people  in 
the  local  districts  must  be  satisfied  that  the  money  they  are  spend- 
ing has  its  full  return.  Thus,  the  elimination  of  wastes  and  the 
building  up  of  the  highest  efficiencies  in  schools  can  be  best  accom- 
plished under  the  local  school  administration.    The  state  should 


87 

insist  on  minimum  standards,  and  through  its  system  of  state  aid 
and  through  the  giving  of  advice  and  assistance  in  local  campaigns, 
promote  efficiency  above  that  level. 

The  sixth  principle,  that  all  of  the  school  districts  should  be 
stimulated  to  make  their  best  efforts,  is  satisfied  in  that  General 
Aid  is  made  applicable  to  all  and  in  proportion  to  effort  expended. 

Cost  of  the  Plan  of  General  and  Special  Aid. 

Before  outlining  the  estimates  of  cost  under  the  Ability  and 
Effort  Plan  a  statement  will  first  be  made  of  the  cost  of  the  grants 
under  the  Edmonds  Act.  In  both  cases  only  the  grants  on  the 
teacher  basis  will  be  considered,  thus  excluding  all  grants  of 
Special  Aid,  such  as  for  transportation  and  the  abandonment  of 
school  buildings. 

The  Edmonds  Act  required  payments  by  the  state  to  local 
school  districts  at  the  rate  of  $16,900,000  per  year,  of  which 
approximately  16  percent  went  to  first  class  districts,  12  percent 
to  second  class  districts,  24  percent  to  third  class  districts  and  48 
percent  to  fourth  class  districts.  It  is  estimated  by  the  Depart- 
ment of  Public  Instruction  that  $18,180,000  will  be  required  for 
the  same  purposes  during  the  next  fiscal  year  beginning  June  1, 
1923,  and  $18,685,000  for  the  following  fiscal  year. 

Careful  estimates  have  been  made  of  the  cost  of  the  plan  of 
GeneralAid  as  proposed  in  Table  23  (pages  60and61).  The  results  of 
such  computations  are  given  in  Table  31  (page  88).  It  will  be  noticed 
that  the  amounts  given  in  the  tables  differ  in  accordance  with  the 
average  tax  rates  that  will  be  levied  in  the  various  types  of 
districts  and  also  with  the  Standards  of  True  Valuation  per  teacher 
which  may  be  adopted.  It  is  believed  that  the  $185,000  as  the 
Standard  True  Valuation  is  the  one  that  should  be  adopted  for 
the  best  interests  of  education  in  Pennsylvania.  This  would 
require  an  annual  expenditure  of  about  $17,700,000,  slightly  less 
than  would  be  required  by  the  operation  of  the  Edmonds  Act 
during  the  coming  year  according  to  the  estimate  of  the  State 
Department  of  Public  Instruction. 


88 

TABLE  31. 

Estimate  of  Expenses  of  All  Classes  of  Districts  in  Lower 
Range  Plus  Upper  Range. 


■       '   ■ — • — ■ 

True 

MILLS 

Per  Teacher 

in  Thousands 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

$125 

$10,346,810 

$11,520,668 

$12,709,132 

$13,895,898 

$15,081,465 

135 

10,369,485 

11,847,410 

13,310,143 

14,780,976 

16,252,809 

145 

10.969,111 

12,611,207 

14,358,309 

16,003,415 

17,649,520 

155 

11,957,125 

13,794,108 

15,667,891- 

17,433,294 

19.266.285 

165 

12,829,780 

14,807,184 

16.786,620; 

18,767,032; 

20,751,419 

175 

13,539,953 

15,660,353 

17,785,753 

19,909,153]) 

22,033.653 

185 

14,346,620 

16,738,550 

19,154,456i 

21,692,042 

24,255,257 

Total  expenses  were  used  as  a  basis  in  the  computations  in  this 
study  for  two  reasons,  first,  because  such  a  basis  is  of  greatest 
benefit  to  those  districts  in  which  there  have  been  long  years  of 
apathy  toward  the  schools;  second,  because  it  is  easy  to  make 
fairly  accurate  estimates  for  a  narrower  basis  upon  that  furnished 
by  total  expenses  if  such  a  step  were  thought  advisable. 

It  is  much  more  difficult  to  estimate  the  amount  that  would  be 
required  by  the  different  forms  of  Special  Aid  suggested  here, 
possibly  $2,000,000  would  be  required  altogether,  including  the 
appropriations  for  vocational  schools.  This  would  make  necessary 
the  total  appropriation  of  practically  $20,000,000  per  year  in  order 
to  promote  the  best  interests  of  education  in  the  state. 

If  the  grants  to  the  school  districts  under  the  Ability  and  Effort 
Plan  were  made  upon  the  basis  of  salaries  alone,  rather  than  upon 
the  total  basis  of  expenses,  the  total  cost  to  the  state  would 
amount  to  approximately  $13,000,000.  Special  Aid  might  be 
reduced  to  an  appropriation  of  $1,000,000,  making  a  total  of 
$14,000,000.  This  is  the  lowest  amount  that  should  be  considered. 
If  deemed  necessary  to  make  the  total  grant  to  public  schools  less 
than  this  amount,  however,  lower  standard  valuations  per  teacher 
could  be  established.  This  would  reduce  the  $13,000,000  for 
General  Aid  in  about  the  same  proportions  as  the  figures  given  in 
Table  31,  with  total  current  expenses  as  their  basis. 

It  is  much  to  be  desired  that  the  districts  having  valuations 
below  $90,000  per  teacher  be  granted  aid  upon  the  basis  of  total 
expenses  rather  than  upon  teachers'  salaries  alone.  To  afford  this 
aid  it  would  require  approximately  $2,000,000  in  addition  to  the 
amount  based  upon  teachers'  salaries  alone.     There  are  about 


89 

11,000  teachers  in  this  state,  more  than  one  in  five,  who  teach  in  a 
school  district,  which  in  order  to  pay  a  teacher  $100  per  month  for 
nine  months,  would  have  to  levy  a  true  mill  tax  of  ten  mills  or 
more — ^ven  up  to  thirty  mills — and  an  additional  tax  of  two  and 
one-half  mills  in  order  to  properly  operate  and  maintain  the  school, 
furnish  adequate  supplies,  proper  janitorial  care,  etc.  As  rates  of 
assessment  run  in  this  state  at  the  present  time  this  would  mean 
an  annual  tax  of  from  twenty  to  twenty-five  mills  or  more — as  high 
up  as  sixty  to  seventy-five  mills.  The  state  grant  averaging  in 
these  poorer  districts  from  $325  to  $350  per  teacher  would  reduce 
this  tax  to  between  fifteen  and  twenty  mills  or  more — as  high  as 
forty-five  to  sixty  mills.  Naturally  under  these  conditions  poor 
schools  have  been  maintained  and  the  interest  in  education  has 
become  very  low  indeed. 

The  state  needs  an  up-building  among  its  rural  schools  similar 
to  that  which  has  transpired  in  the  past  two  years  in  its  city 
schools.  It  cannot  be  satisfactorily  accomplished  unless  state  aid  is 
granted  upon  the  basis  of  expense  rather  than  that  involved  in  teachers' 
salaries,  which  aid  must,  of  course,  be  carefully  safeguarded  by  proper 
maximum  standards.  This  would  require  about  $16,000,000  per 
year. 

Other  Aspects  of  State  Financial  Policy  in  the 
Field  of  Education. 

There  are  certain  other  features  of  finances  of  public  education 
in  the  state  that  should  be  mentioned  briefly  in  such  a  study  as 
this. 

Reorganization  of  Local  School  Districts. — Generally 
speaking  the  boundaries  of  the  school  districts  of  the  state  coincide 
with  those  of  the  cities,  boroughs  and  townships.  Such  a  division 
of  territory  in  rural  sections  is  not  well  adapted  to  the  convenient 
lo(iation  of  school  houses,  particularly  of  high  schools  and  to  the 
local  support  of  schools.  In  consequence  many  pupils  in  the  state 
now  have  to  walk  long  distances,  and  sometimes  through  other 
school  districts,  in  order  to  reach  their  particular  school.  There 
are  also  many  pupils  who  have  completed  the  grammar  course  and 
are  ready  to  enter  high  school  but  cannot  find  a  high  school 
open  to  them.     The  districts  in  which  they  live  are  not  able 


90 

financially  to  erect  a  high  school  building  and  to  bear  the  expense 
of  running  schools  therein.  Even  if  they  were  financially  able 
their  boundaries  are  such  that  the  number  of  pupils  is  insufficient 
or  even  if  these  conditions  were  met  there  would  be  great  waste 
upon  the  part  of  many  districts  in  maintaining  small  high  schools. 

The  force  of  all  this  statement  is  that  the  territory  of  the  state 
should  be  redistricted,  and  units  be  formed  which  will  contribute 
to  the  highest  efficiency  of  the  schools  on  the  one  hand  and  to  the 
most  economic  operation  of  such  schools  on  the  other  hand.  Such 
a  reorganization  should  have  as  its  basis  the  establishment  of  units 
of  territory,  each  contributory  to  a  central  high  school  so  that 
each  child  of  high  school  age  would  have  a  high  school  reasonably 
close  at  hand  to  which  he  is  entitled  to  go.  The  completion  of  the 
high  school  by  every  pupil  is  as  much  the  standard  of  today  as 
the  completion  of  the  grammar  school  was  20  or  30  years  ago. 
These  changes  make  necessary  a  complete  reorganization  of  the 
school  districts  of  the  state.  The  sooner  this  is  done,  the  better 
from  the  standpoint  of  elimination  of  waste  in  public  school 
expenditures. 

High  School  Tuition. — In  order  to  promote  in  the  best  way 
the  attainment  of  high  school  education  by  all  the  pupils  of  the 
state  until  such  reorganization  is  brought  about,  the  method  pro- 
vided in  the  state  school  code  for  estimating  the  amount  of  high 
school  tuition  should  be  changed.  The  expenses  of  operation, 
maintenance  and  depreciation  of  the  physical  plant  should  be 
taken  into  account  in  fixing  the  rate  of  tuition  as  well  as  the  cost 
of  instruction  as  now  provided.  Presumably  the  present  plan 
which  benefits  the  rural  districts  was  adopted  because  usually 
these  districts  are  less  able  to  pay  for  such  tuition  than  are  the 
districts  in  which  the  high  schools  are  situated,  but  in  the  plan  for 
General  Aid  recommended  above  all  of  these  differences  are 
removed  so  that  this  plan  of  computation  will  be  equitable  to  all 
and  will  at  the  same  time  encourage  the  boroughs  to  open  their 
doors  to  rural  school  pupils  in  the  way  in  which  they  now,  in 
justice  to  themselves,  rightfully  refuse  to  do.  It  is  also  recom- 
mended that  a  law  be  passed  authorizing  any  local  school  district 
to  make  a  contract  with  any  other  school  district  for  the  instruc- 
tion of  pupils  in  the  high  schools,  such  contract  to  be  subject  to 
the  approval  of  the  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction. 


91 

State  School  Fund. — A  State  School  Fund  provided  for  in  the 
Code  of  1911,  which  has  been  gradually  increasing  as  the  proceeds 
of  the  income  from  forest  lands  has  come  in,  should  be  still  further 
developed  so  that  in  the  years  to  come  we  may  have  a  permanent 
school  fund  comparable  to  those  of  other  states.  The  sources  for 
the  increase  of  such  funds  should  be  enlarged  to  the  greatest  possi- 
ble extent.  Need  for  this  is  seen  in  Table  32,  which  shows  the 
large  school  funds  of  other  states. 


TABLE  32. 
Permanent  State  School  Funds,  1919-20.^ 


states 

Alabama 2 , 

Arizona 1 , 

Arkansas 1 , 

California 7 , 

Colorado 6 , 

Connecticut 2 , 

Delaware 

Florida 1 , 

Georgia 

Idaho 9, 107 

IlUnois 948 

Indiana 10 ,226 

Iowa 4,818 

Kansas 9 ,  958 

Kentucky 2,013 

Louisiana 2 ,  447 

Maine 485 

Maryland 247 

Massachusetts 5 ,  000 

Michigan 5 ,  335 

Minnesota 30,920 

Mississippi 1 ,  035 

Missouri 3 ,  159 

Montana 17,518 

Nebraska 9,425 

Nevada 2,770 

New  Hampshire 59 

New  Jersey 8,236 

New  Mexico 567 

New  York 9,371 

North  Carolina 907 

North  Dakota 13,560 

Ohio 16,405 

Oklahoma 12,660 

Oregon 8,629 

Pennsylvania 495 

Rhode  Island 255 

South  Carolina 60 

South  Dakota 24,312 

Tennessee 2 ,  512 

Texas 73,892 

Utah 4 ,  192 

Vermont 1 ,365 

Virginia 

Washington 15,332 

West  Virginia 1 ,000 

Wisconsin 5,012 

Wyoming 3,743 


500 
527 
000 
987 
574 
170 
235 
667 


182 
955 
927 
094 
535 
536 
745 
744 
935 
000 
732 
032 
641 
281 
966 
094 
674 
723 
288 
689 
863 
406 
081 
883 
811 
260 
747 
193 
000 
084 
500 
960 
997 
642 


440 
000 
394 
853 


'Data  furnished  by  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Education  Report. 


92 

The  delays  in  the  payment  of  the  state  grants  to  local  districts 
during  the  past  two  years  have  caused  considerable  harm  and 
inconvenience.  The  fundamental  reason  is  the  lack  of  ready 
money  in  the  State  Treasury.  The  State  Department  of  Public 
Instruction  has  not  been  responsible  in  any  way.  The  remedy  is 
the  passage  of  an  act  directing  the  State  Auditor  and  the  Treasurer 
to  pay  grants  to  local  districts  on  or  before  dates  specified  in  the 
law,  to  authorize  them  to  draw  upon  the  separate  funds  and  to 
reimburse  such  funds  upon  the  receipt  of  the  first  taxes  together 
with  proper  interest.  There  are  millions  of  dollars  of  such  funds 
available.  It  is  not  only  unfair  to  the  local  districts  to  make  them 
borrow  money  in  lieu  of  overdue  state  funds,  but  it  is  a  discredit 
to  the  state  itself  not  to  be  able  to  pay  its  obligations. 

Commission. — There  are  undoubtedly  wastes  in  the  conduct  of 
public  schools  at  the  present  time.  This  exists  throughout  all  parts 
of  the  country.  The  schools  of  Pennsylvania  are  probably  being 
conducted  more  economically  than  those  of  most  states,  neverthe- 
less it  is  desirable  that  definite  steps  be  taken  to  study  ways  and 
means  of  eliminating  such  wastes.  It  is  recommended  that  a 
commission  be  formed  consisting  of  experts  in  the  various  fields 
of  public  school  management  and  of  citizens  who  will  make  the 
proper  inquiry  into  this  subject  and  report  to  the  Governor  and  to 
the  Legislature  at  a  session  two  years  hence. 


93 

Supplementary  Report. 

To  the  Citizens'  Committee  on  Finances 

oj  the 

State  oj  Pennsylvania 

The  following  undersigned  members  of  the  Advisory  Committee 
on  Education  beg  leave  to  submit  the  following  supplementary 
report: 

I.  We  agree  on  the  whole  with  the  report  on  the  public  schools 
as  submitted  by  the  experts.  We  recognize  needed  changes 
in  the  method  of  distributing  state  school  funds  and  urge  the 
careful  and  further  study  of  the  "Ability  and  Effort  Plan." 

II.  We  do  not  find  ourselves,  however,  in  complete  agreement 
with  that  part  of  the  report  which  advocates  the  new  method 
of  distribution  called  in  the  report  "The  Ability  and  Effort 
Plan"  for  the  following  reasons: 

1.  Until  there  is  an  agency  such  as  a  State  Tax  Commission 
to  equalize  and  to  determine  rates  of  assessment,  any  such 
plan  as  proposed  must  be  based  upon  the  reports  of  assessment 
as  made  by  the  school  board  secretaries  of  2,600  districts. 
As  is  well  known  these  reported  rates  were  in  most  cases  mere 
opinion. 

2.  While  in  the  opinion  of  the  experts  the  "Ability  and 
Effort  Plan"  alone  would  cost  no  more  than  the  Edmonds 
plan  yet,  if  it  should  be  necessary  to  retain  the  plan  of  the 
Edmonds  Act  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  first  and  second  class 
districts,  about  $5,000,000  now  would  be  required. 

III.   Therefore,  we  strongly  recommend  that  the  essential  features 
of  the  Edmonds  Act  be  retained  for  the  following  reasons: 

1.  It  would  be  unwise  and  inopportune  to  introduce  a  new 
plan  of  distribution  before  giving  the  present  Edmonds  Act 
a  longer  trial. 

2.  The  Edmonds  Act  has  made  a  beginning  in  equalizing 
educational  opportunities,  especially  in  fourth  class  districts. 

3.  Each  feature  of  the  Edmonds  Act  is  an  essential  part  of  a 
state-wide  forward-looking  educational  program.    To  disturb 


94 

or  change  radically  any  part  of  the  Act  would  endanger  the 
whole  program  that  has  so  generally  been  accepted  through- 
out the  state. 

4.  The  Edmonds  Act  is  simple  in  its  provisions,  easily  under- 
stood and  administered. 

5.  The  provisions  of  the  Edmonds  Act  are  retaining  many 
efficient  teachers  in  the  service  of  the  state,  improving 
thousands  of  others,  and  attracting  many  young  men  and 
women  of  superior  ability  to  the  profession. 

IV.  While  commending  the  general  features  of  the  Edmonds  Act, 
we  feel  that  the  following  improvements  should  be  made: 

1.  Definite  salary  schedule  with  increments  for  fourth  class 
districts  (as  in  the  report). 

2.  Same  number  of  increments  for  each  class  of  school  dis- 
tricts in  order  to  retain  efficient  teachers  in  each  type  of 
district  (as  in  the  report). 

3.  The  state  should  contribute  its  share  of  the  increments 
required  in  each  district  (as  in  the  report). 

4.  Provisions  should  be  made  for  the  creation  of  a  fimd  for 
Special  Aid  to  needy  school  districts. 

(Signed) 

Charles  E.  Dickey  R.  L.  Mimce 

Edward  S.  Ling  Carmon  Ross 

T.  T.  Allen  John  A.  Keith 

Charles  S.  Davis  Samuel  Black  McCormick 

Robert  E.  Laramy  Edwin  C.  Broome 

Florence  Deibert  John  F.  Shields 


CHAPTER  III. 

Normal  Schools. 

Foundation, — There  are  fourteen  State  Normal  Schools  in 
Pennsylvania,  one  of  which,  the  Cheyney  School,  is  designated  for 
the  training  of  negro  teachers.  This  school  was  but  recently 
acquired  by  the  state,  and  as  the  data  for  it,  as  well  as  for  similar 
institutions  throughout  the  country  are  most  limited,  this  study 
will  be  confined  to  the  original  thirteen  State  Normal  Schools  only. 

The  first  of  these  schools  was  organized  at  Millersville  in  1855, 
but  was  not  recognized  as  a  State  Normal  School  until  1857.  The 
Normal  School  Act  of  1857  resulted  in  the  establishing  of  other 
schools  in  different  parts  of  the  state,  the  thirteenth  and  last  one 
being  organized  in  1893.  Many  of  these  schools  were  formerly 
private  academies  devoted  to  secondary  academic  training  and  in 
some  instances  were  founded  through  local  philanthropic  efforts 
as  private  corporations  under  the  law  of  1857.  Because  of  this 
they  were  established  here  and  there  in  small  rural  communities 
without  any  preconceived  plan  of  organizing  a  system  of  schools 
for  the  training  of  teachers  to  supply  the  need  of  the  public 
schools  of  the  state. 

The  Normal  Schools  are  now  owned  and  controlled  by  the  state, 
having  been  acquired  during  the  past  ten  years,  through  purchase 
under  the  law  of  1911,  with  the  state  assuming  all  mortgages  and 
general  indebtedness  of  each  school  respectively. 

Tuition  and  Maintenance. — For  a  period  of  time  prior  to 
1919,  the  tuition  of  Normal  School  students  over  seventeen  years 
of  age  preparing  to  teach  was  paid  by  the  state  at  the  rate  of  $60 
per  year.  From  that  time  until  1921  the  rate  was  increased  to  $80 
per  year,  or  $2  per  week.  In  addition  to  this  the  state  also  paid 
each  Normal  School  $10,000  annually  for  maintenance.  This  most 
inadequate  system  of  state  support  was  changed  in  1921  when  the 
old  tuition  and  maintenance  policies  were  replaced  by  one  appro- 
priating a  very  much  larger  amount  (1)  "For  instructional, 
operating  and  maintenance  expenses,"  and  (2)  "for  necessary 
additions,  extensions,  alterations,  equipment  and  repairs,"  to  be 
distributed  by  the  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction. 

95 


96 

In  1921  there  was  also  an  appropriation  made  to  the  trustees  of 
the  several  State  Normal  Schools  to  cover  the  deficiencies  of  the 
two  previous  years  and  an  appropriation  for  the  payment  and 
liquidation  of  the  mortgage  indebtedness.  An  unused  balance  of 
an  appropriation  "heretofore  made  by  the  general  appropriation 
act  in  1919"  was  "re-appropriated  to  the  Department  of  Public 
Instruction  to  be  paid  to  the  said  State  Normal  Schools  for 
maintenance."  While  these  appropriations  will  be  analyzed  later 
on  in  this  study,  it  will  be  seen  at  once  that  the  state  support  for 
the  state-owned  and  controlled  Normal  Schools  was  not  only 
much  enlarged  in  1921,  but  it  was  also  placed  on  an  entirely 
different  basis. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  trace,  first,  the  historical  development 
of  these  schools  from  the  early  privately  owned  and  controlled 
institution  to  the  present  state-owned  and  controlled  system; 
second,  the  changes  in  management  from  a  board  of  eighteen 
trustees  entirely  elected  by  stockholders  to  one  composed  of  half  of 
the  trustees  elected  by  the  stockholders  and  half  appointed  by 
the  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction,  and  finally  to  the 
present  plan  of  nine  trustees  appointed  by  the  State  Superin- 
tendent of  Public  Instruction;  third,  the  development  from  the 
former  highly  diversified  system  in  which  each  school  was  largely 
permitted  to  work  out  its  own  plans  and  ideals  in  all  educational 
and  financial  aspects,  to  the  present  uniformly  centralized  system 
of  state  control  and  state  support;  and  fourth,  the  gradual  evolu- 
tion in  the  aim  of  each  school  from  academic-secondary  school 
standards  to  the  present  progressive  professional  standards  as 
evidenced  by  the  successive  changes  in  the  course  of  study  from  a 
two-year  secondary  course  beyond  the  elementary  grades,  to  a 
three-year,  then  to  a  four-year  course,  and  finally  to  the  present 
course  of  two  years  of  professional  training  in  addition  to  a 
preparatory  four-year  High  School  course.'  Any  one  of  these 
phases  of  development  might  easily  become  the  subject  of  a  special 
investigation.  In  this  study,  however,  they  will  be  referred  to 
only  in  the  large  as  a  possible  explanation  of  some  of  the  condi- 
tions which  may  be  pointed  out  in  the  financial  studies  of  the 
Normal  School  system  as  it  is  now  constituted. 


'Baker,  Frank  E.,  Discussion,  Pennsylvania  State  Normal  Schools — Schoolmen's  Week  Proceed- 
ings, 1916,  pp.  85-95. 


97 

The  Scope  of  the  Investigation. 

An  effort  will  be  made  to  study  the  data  of  the  thirteen  Normal 
Schools  in  order  to  evaluate  the  findings  in  terms  of  standards 
obtained  from  a  similar  investigation  for  1921-22  of:  (1)^  a 
group  of  eight  Normal  Schools  selected  as  among  the  best  de- 
veloped schools  for  the  training  of  teachers,  (2)-  thirty  unselected 
Normal  Schools  with  two-year  courses  from  all  parts  of  the 
country,  (3)^  eight  unselected  Normal  Schools  with  more  than 
two-year  courses,  and  (4)  the  Normal  School  systems  of  the  states 
of  Massachusetts,  Minnesota  and  Wisconsin. 

This  study  will  be  concerned  mainly  with  the  analysis  of  Nor- 
mal Schools  under  the  following  headings: 

1.  Normal  School  Conditions. 

a.  The  student  enrollment,  Normal  and  Training  School 
faculties  and  Training  School  enrollment  and  facilities. 

b.  The  total  expenses,  total  instruction  (including  instruc- 
tion in  Normal  School  and  in  Training  School),  general 
control,  auxiliary  agencies,  maintenance,  operation  and 
capital  outlay. 

c.  Normal  School  and  Training  School  salaries. 

d.  Housing  expenses. 

2.  The  Purpose  of  and  Need  for  Normal  Schools  in  the 

state  and  the  facilities  for  meeting  such  needs. 

3.  Receipts  and  State  Appropriations. 

4.  Conclusions  and  Recommendations,  especially  with  view 

to  a  state  budget,  that  may  be  safely  drawn  from  the 
facts  obtained. 


^The  eight  selected  Normal  Schoob: 

State  Normal  School,  San  Diego,  Cal.  Montclair  Normal  School,  Montclair,  N.  J. 

State  Normal  School,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.  Buflalo  Normal  School,  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

State  Normal  School,  Milwaukee,  Wis.  St.  Cloud  Teachers  College,  St.  Cloud,  Minn. 

State  Normal  School,  Salem,  Mass.  Illinois  State  Normal,  Normal,  111. 

The  thirty  unselected  Normal  Schools  with  two-year  courses  are  located  in  the  following  seventeen 
states: 


Arizona 

Kentucky 

New  Hampshire 

North  Dakota 

California 

Massachusetts 

New  Jersey 

Oklahoma 

Connecticut 

Minnesota 

New  York 

South  Dakota 

Georgia 

Montana 

North  Carolina 

Texas 

West  Virginia 

"The  eight  unselected  Normal  Schools  with  more  than  two-year  courses  are: 

State  Normal  School,  Salem,  Mass.  State  Normal  School,  Stevens  Point,  Wis. 

State  Normal  School,  Fredonia,  Mass.  State  Normal  School,  Whitewater,  Wis. 

State  Normal  School,  Cheney,  Wis.  Washinnton  State  Normal  School,  F^llensburg,  Wash. 

State  Normal  School,  River  Falls,  Wis.  State  Teachers  College,  Fresno,  Cal. 


98 

Student  Enrollment,  Training  School 
and  Faculty. 

Normal  School  Enrollment. — In  Column  2,  of  Table  33 
(page  99),  it  will  be  observed  that  the  regular  Normal  School 
enrollment  for  the  year  1921-22  ranges  from  814  in  School  No.  6, 
ranking  1  in  size,  to  151  in  School  No.  8,  ranking  13  in  size,  with 
an  average  enrollment  of  424,  These  enrollment  figures  comprise 
the  number  of  regular  Normal  course  students  listed  in  Column  3, 
plus  the  number  of  students  in  Special  Courses  and  secondary 
departments  found  in  Columns  4  and  5,  respectively.  In  order  to 
compute  the  per  capita  expenses  of  these  schools  there  has  been 
added  to  the  regular  Normal  School  enrollment  one-fourth  of  the 
number  of  students  enrolled  in  the  summer  and  spring  ses- 
sions, as  these  are  of  nine  weeks  duration,  comprising  one-fourth 
of  the  regular  school  year.  These  figures  are  included  in  Column  1, 
designated  "adjusted  total  enrollment." 


99 


jooqDg  SuiuiBJX 
jaqoBaj,  J3d  [ooqog 
SuiuiBjjj  ui  s[idnj^ 


lO  rl  CO  •^  (M  •fl' 


Jed  [ooqog 
SuiuiBj J,  ut  s[tdnj 


;DiO(Miomoo>t>.-icooow.-i 


MM 


[ooqag 
SuiuiBjji'u;  siidnj 


XriinoB  J  looqog 

[BuiJOfsj  jaqOBaj, 

jjd  s^uaprns 


Tj'GOt-'MinOjasMCDOt'C^rH 

^    .-^  ^    W    ^    _.    -^    ^  V_,  V^  V_-    _  (JQ 

OU5C-0«5OM<MOC<l<MIMvn 

rHM»-iM(Nm,-iasOiO^r-400 
CjD'»t(M<X!iCCCTj"^HiOc^ra-c<IrH 


OMCSfHMOO-^N^lOWt^i-i 


M'^-'t'^O^'lOU^OOCO-^lOOt-' 
MOOMWOM^rHirtCDOOxno 


AinDBj 
[OoqogSuiuiBJX 


^lOt'Oit^i-^Oilrtt-rJ* 


poqas  iBuiJojvt 


i-i<j>Na>oqMMNa> 


X^inoB^  looqog  3ut 

-UIBIX  PUB  [BlUJOfj 


TtNlMMMU3C<l'HMMMMT]< 


aouapuodsajjOQ 


Z3-XS6I 
uoisnaixg 


in  oi  ^  <M  00  lO 

tr-Oi'*  OM  t- 
CO  IM  "-l  "S- to  O 


uoissag  Suudg 


IS6X 
uoissag  jauiuing 


00.-lOC-MMOm(N(MU5<MM 
OiOin-^fM^lC^-^OOiniftOS 
■^mMMro'^MIM(NMTliTl>(M 


ZS6ls9^^nps-iO 


«Oi-IM03  0lN'nW<l'MC-OOTH 


ooc^ooN'^fOt-'air-^vOTj^Tf-^ 


00       M        t~>-( 


•s}da(i  j^JBpuoaag 
uj  S4uapn:)g 


t>fHOM      ■rHimnOr-llOt*-«f 


sasjnoQ 
[Bioadg  at  sjuapncjg 


s^uapn^g  asanoQ 
[Euijofsj  jBinSay 


■<*  COM  t->-(tO00  ■«»■*[-■*■*  00 
O:>00i-H^scomT-<(Minai»-<MC<I 
Mrti-lNIM-^M<-lMMMMt> 


suoissag 
jauiuing  puB 
3uudg  3uipn[Dxa 
^uaujiiojua  jBin3ajj 


mooiNOi-i>-it>roio<j>'*!£>M 


iO«OM--ltO'«fMr-IOJ«)T)l<»0 

»-HCON»-'oo*-Hi>vntDu:)t-ot^ 

lOMIMMlMOOM^'^MTfTft- 


uoissag  jauiiung 

puB  3uudg  3ui 

-pnpui  nuacui]0jua 

lE^o:)  pajsnfpv 


■^COC^Oi-lTHasMt>OOMW3C<l 


o-<#u:)cca*o»-<-^ocoMa5M 

•^MMOltOMCOOJMIMaOM-^ 
tOlOMCOMOl'^CJiOUS'vDmoO 


•C^  C.2  N^  c^  aS'M 
OHM  ^  i^  ^  <•  <^  caj  '■/^1> 


t-lNM'^"i«0C-00a>O'-ilMM 


♦-»  ^        S  tft   m 

£.>-'  0)  M  c  rt 


^K 


100 

The  average  corrected  enrollment  for  all  the  Normal  Schools  is 
539,  with  a  range  of  930  in  School  No.  6  to  224  in  School  No.  8. 
The  seven  Normal  Schools  comprising  the  middle  50  percent  of 
this  group  range  in  attendance  from  640  in  School  No.  1  to  398  in 
School  No.  4. 

In  comparing  this  enrollment  with  the  standards  as  found  at  the 
foot  of  Table  33  it  may  be  seen  that  the  Pennsylvania  Normal 
Schools  are  considerably  lower  in  average  enrollment  than  in  the 
selected  schools  with  an  average  of  732,  the  unselected  schools  with 
more  than  two-year  courses  with  an  average  of  720,  the  Minnesota 
Normal  Schools  with  an  average  of  994,  and  the  Wisconsin  schools 
with  an  average  of  624.  However,  in  comparison  with  the  average 
enrollment  of  436  for  the  thirty  unselected  State  Normal  Schools 
with  two-year  courses  and  Massachusetts  with  its  average  of  244, 
Pennsylvania  ranks  higher.  It  will,  therefore,  be  seen  from  these 
figures  that  when  the  total  enrollment  is  considered,  including 
the  summer  and  spring  sessions,  that  four  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Normal  Schools  have  enrollments  of  over  600  students  and  con- 
sequently rank  fairly  well  in  size  with  the  other  Normal  Schools  of 
the  country.  However,  in  the  regular  Normal  School  enrollment 
(Column  2),  excluding  the  spring  and  summer  sessions,  only 
three  of  the  thirteen  schools  have  enrollments  of  over  500  students. 
At  the  same  time  it  should  be  pointed  out  that  in  1921-22 
Schools  Nos.  8,3,  5  and  4  had  unusually  small  enrollments,  a  factor 
which  must  be  kept  in  mind  throughout  this  study  in  analyzing 
the  finances  of  these  schools.  All  of  these  enrollment  figures  have 
been  materially  increased  in  practically  all  departments  for  the 
present  year,  1922-23,  as  will  be  pointed  out  later  in  this  study. 

Enrollment  in  Special  Courses. — A  further  analysis  of  the 
enrollment  in  the  Pennsylvania  Normal  Schools  shows  that 
probably  the  two  most  unusual  facts  are  the  number  of  students 
in  Special  Courses  and  the  number  of  students  in  secondary 
departments.  Columns  4  and  5.  While  most  of  the  Normal 
Schools  having  a  large  number  of  students  in  Special  Courses 
are  authorized  by  the  State  Department  of  Public  Instruction 
to  give  certificates  for  this  special  training,  it  is  significant  that 
some  of  the  schools,  notably  Nos.  1,  2  and  8,  report  a  compara- 
tively large  number  of  these  special  students,  who  will  not  receive 
special  certificates  and  who  are  probably  not  preparing  to  teach. 


101 

Again  several  of  the  schools  have  included  these  special  students, 
who  are  not  receiving  certificates  in  regularly  organized  Special 
Courses,  among  the  group  listed  in  Column  5  as  secondary 
department  students.  While  the  number  of  students  who  are 
enrolled  in  secondary  departments  is  decreasing  from  year  to  year 
in  most  of  the  schools,  yet  the  total  is  entirely  too  large  when  the 
real  purpose  of  the  State  Normal  Schools  is  taken  into  account. 
Four  of  the  schools,  Nos.  6, 12, 11  and  3,  have  each  more  than  100 
such  students  enrolled.  This  condition  should  receive  special 
attention,  especially  since  enlarged  Training  School  facilities  are 
needed,  and  since  the  need  for  preparing  more  teachers  is  so 
apparent.  The  facilities  now  used  by  the  939  students  in  the  secon- 
dary departments  and  the  250  students  in  Special  Courses  not 
receiving  authorized  state  certificates  could  be  made  available  for 
regular  Normal  School  students. 

Enrollment  in  Summer  and  Spring  Sessions. — The  Normal 
Schools  have  given  considerable  service  to  the  state  through  their 
summer  sessions  as  evidenced  by  the  1921  enrollment  ranging 
from  501  in  School  No.  2  to  242  in  School  No.  9,  with  an  average 
per  school  of  379  and  a  total,  of  4,931  students.  The  1922  summer 
session  enrollment  figures  were  much  increased  in  practically  all  of 
the  schools.    (See  Table  39.) 

Five  Normal  Schools  had  spring  sessions  of  nine  weeks'  duration 
in  the  second  half  of  the  second  semester,  organized  especially  for 
the  training  of  teachers  in  service.  School  No.  11  showed  an 
enrollment  of  378  spring  session  students.  School  No.  10,  289  and 
School  No.  2, 171.  There  were  1,029  such  students  enrolled  in  the 
spring  of  1922  with  an  average  for  the  five  schools  of  172.  While 
only  six  of  the  schools  maintained  such  sessions  yet  the  total 
attendance  would  indicate  that  they  were  fulfilling  a  certain  need 
which  must  be  taken  into  account.  At  the  same  time  we  must  not 
lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  this  large  body  of  students  entering  the 
schools  during  the  spring  term  is  bound  to  affect  to  a  certain  degree 
the  regular  Normal  School  administration.  This  fact  may  explain 
why  there  is  a  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  schools  where  they  are 
organized  to  eliminate  them  by  substituting  the  summer  session 
or  the  Extension  course. 

Enrollment  in  Extension  and  Correspondence  Courses. — 
In  1921  through  the  initiative  of  the  State  Department  of  Public 


102 

Instruction  most  of  the  schools  organized  Extension  Courses  in 
various  centers  throughout  the  state.  During  the  years  1921-1922 
there  were  3,970  students  enrolled  in  these  courses,  in  eleven  of  the 
thirteen  Normal  Schools,  with  an  average  enrollment  of  361 
students.  In  the  Correspondence  courses  established  in  the  same 
year  in  six  of  the  Normal  Schools  there  was  a  total  enrollment  of 
361  students. 

Normal  School  Graduates. — The  total  number  of  Normal 
School  graduates  in  1922  was  1,797,  an  average  of  138  per  school. 
Column  6,  Table  33,  also  shows  a  range  in  number  of  graduates 
from  294  in  School  No.  13  to  38  in  School  No.  3.  In  comparing 
the  number  of  graduates  in  the  Pennsylvania  State  Normal  Schools 
with  those  indicated  in  the  standards  it  is  found  that  the  average 
number  of  graduates  in  the  selected  schools,  178,  is  considerably 
greater  than  the  average  for  Pennsylvania.  In  the  unselected 
schools  with  more  than  two-year  courses  and  in  the  Normal 
Schools  in  the  state  of  Minnesota  with  averages  of  137  and  131 
respectively,  the  number  of  graduates  is  approximately  the  same 
as  the  average  number  for  the  state  of  Pennsylvania.  At  the 
same  time  the  thirty  unselected  schools  with  an  average  of  83 
graduates  and  Massachusetts  with  an  average  of  79  graduates 
are  very  much  lower  than  the  Pennsylvania  Normal  Schools. 

Normal  School  and  Training  School  Faculties. — The 
average  Normal  School  faculty  is  36  in  number,  ranging  from  69  in 
School  No.  6  to  19  in  School  No.  8.  On  the  basis  of  the  number  of 
students  enrolled  in  the  Normal  Schools,  it  will  be  seen  in  Column 
14  that  School  No.  11,  ranking  3  in  total  enrollment  and  4  in  size 
of  faculty  has  a  proportion  of  18.5  students  per  teacher,  thus 
placing  it  in  rank  2,  School  No.  13  with  the  second  largest  enroll- 
ment and  5  in  size  of  faculty  has  a  proportion  of  20.1  students  per 
teacher  and  ranks  1  in  the  list.  School  No.  8  with  the  smallest  num- 
ber of  students  ranks  13  in  relative  size  of  faculty  with  a  proportion  of 
11.8  students  per  teacher,  thus  ranking  next  to  the  lowest.  Like- 
wise School  No.  5,  ranking  11  in  size  and  6.5  in  size  of  faculty,  has 
the  smallest  proportion,  viz.,  10.9  students  per  teacher. 

The  middle  50  percent  of  the  group,  seven  schools,  range  from 
13.3  to  16.5  students  per  teacher,  distributed  about  the  general 
average  of  15.1  for  the  entire  group.  This  latter  figure  is  prac- 
tically the  same  as  the  average  number  of  students  per  teacher 


103 

for  the  thirty  unselected  Normal  Schools  in  the  country  at  large, 
15.3,  and  just  slightly  less  than  the  average,  17.6  for  the  unselected 
schools  of  more  than  two-year  courses.  Since  the  cost  of  instruc- 
tion is  the  largest  single  item  in  the  total  expenses  of  the  Normal 
School,  these  variations  in  size  of  faculty  per  student  enrolled 
will  have  considerable  bearing  in  an  explanation  of  the  differences 
in  expenses  among  the  Normal  Schools. 

Training  School  Facilities. — The  data  in  the  last  two  columns 
of  Table  33  will  give  an  idea  of  the  facilities  afforded  seniors  in  the 
training  school  of  each  of  the  Normal  Schools,  It  is  to  be  expected 
that  the  number  of  students  in  these  schools  will  vary  since  the 
policy  in  each  is  dependent  in  a  large  measure  upon  local  public 
school  conditions  and  relationships.  It  is  not  our  purpose  to 
analyze  the  two  or  three  essentially  different  teacher-training 
plans  in  vogue  among  these  schools,  but  rather  to  shed  some  light 
in  explanation  of  the  tremendous  variation  in  cost,  which  dis- 
cussion will  be  taken  up  later. 

The  number  of  pupils  available  for  training  purposes  ranges 
from  192  in  School  No.  8  to  1,858  in  School  No.  13,  with  an 
average  of  543  for  the  thirteen  schools.  From  a  teacher-training 
standpoint  the  significance  of  these  figures  in  training  school 
enrollment  can  be  more  clearly  pointed  out  in  Column  16  on  the 
basis  of  the  number  of  graduates  per  Normal  School.  School  No. 
13  indicates  6.3  pupils  per  Normal  School  graduate,  while  School 
No.  10  indicates  1.7  pupils  per  gi^aduate,  with  an  average  of  4.0 
pupils  for  all  the  schools  combined.  Compared  with  the  standards 
obtained  from  the  selected  Normal  Schools  with  an  average  of 
4.3  and  the  unselected  two-year  Normal  Schools  with  an  average 
of  4.6,  the  Pennsylvania  Normal  Schools  have  a  lower  average. 
Minnesota  and  Wisconsin  Normal  Schools  have  an  average  of  2.3 
training  school  pupils  per  Normal  School  graduate,  which  is 
considerably  less  than  the  4.0  pupil  average  for  Pennsylvania 
schools.  While  the  enrollment  in  practically  all  of  the  schools  is 
below  the  standard  considered  essential  for  proper  training  pur- 
poses, our  chief  consideration  of  these  items  here  is  for  comparative 
purposes  in  analyzing  expenses. 


104 

Normal  School  Expenses. 

Tables  34  to  38  are  based  on  the  financial  reports  submitted 
by  the  principals  of  the  Normal  Schools  to  the  Department  of 
Public  Instruction. 

Average  Yearly  Expense  Per  Student. — In  these  tables  are 
tabulated  completely  in  amounts  and  percentages  the  total 
expenses  and  expenses  of  instruction,  general  control,  general 
auxiliary  agencies,  maintenance  and  operation  as  well  as  capital 
outlay  for  each  Normal  School  as  compared  with  the  average  of 
all  the  Normal  Schools  and  with  the  various  standards.  These 
various  items  are  analyzed  in  Table  35  on  the  basis  of  the  number 
of  students  enrolled  per  year,  and  in  Table  36  on  the  basis  of  an 
attendance  week,  which  may  be  defined  as  the  attendance  of  one 
student  for  one  week  during  the  school  year  1921-22,  It  will  be 
seen  that  the  average  yearly  expense  per  student  in  all  Normal 
Schools  is  $271  or  $6.15  per  week.  There  is,  however,  a  wide 
variation  in  the  cost  of  individual  schools,  three  of  them  Nos.  8, 
4  and  12  in  the  upper  quartile  show  annual  expenses  of  $480,  $425 
and  $353  respectively,  or  a  weekly  expense  of  $10.67,  $9.44  and 
$7.84,  while  Schools  Nos.  10,  13  and  11  in  the  third  quartile  show 
just  the  opposite  extreme,  with  expenses  of  $249,  $195  and  $169 
respectively,  per  student,  or  a  weekly  expense  of  $5.53,  $4.33  and 
$3.75. 


105 


09   " 


«  -  "  fl  ^ 


a  3 


ecco      coot- 1- 

CO        r-l        rH 


(M  to  ■^  0>  T)<  i-l  C3 

O  C5  -^  r3«  Ol  nD  t  " 

t- 1-  a>  t- CO  CO ' 


CO  Irt  OS  rj*  lA 
O  C5 -^  r3«  Ol  nD  00     -T-HOOviasO 

"     -     —  -     -        COO  OOiO 


TJ  to  .-I  to  lO  CT>  ■* 


00  <N 

coo 


•-1       N       (Ji 


TjimrHooooicoi^in^Tji 

T3<tOOrHCOa>OOtOC-OOOCOlO 
•HOTTOOC-OOIMt-COC-C-O 


f*  t-  to  -^  to  00 


O       N       OtOlrtN 

"5     oa     toN  to  i-i 


CO       00       O^  OOlO  Oi 


05 


w 

o 

H 

o 

< 

< 
PQ 
Q 

z 
<: 

< 

H 

o 

< 

<: 
o 

H 

CO 


"8 


lAOOOlCOOt-C^tTii-ICvIO^lCO 

oo^tocoto-^tT-Ht-tr-iOf-HO^io 

OC0t>0J0000t0O0atOT-<05C0 


N  to 

to  to 


a  60 


t-oiooasoootoosooi-iooooai 


WOSOOCOt-O'^t-'^OOOascO 
(MtH         r-lTHM,-'         ,Hr-l  r-l 


00        05        00  -^  00  OS 
CJ         «3         rl  t>0OCO 


to     c^     o  <M  m  iH 


c  a 


OOCO<JJr-400ir50lATrOO^r-l 

aiooooiOTf»-tioc5tooqa)-^05 

COODOJC-CTilMOOtDi-lOOJOOas 


CO     o>     oao)  i-i  00 


3—«.t3  o 
t.  -  c  o 

to  o  ca  o 


'XJt-OOOt^OOCOCOCOrHtNCOiO 


CS»-HiC00i-lCJ-^0OCi^TfC4O0 


4J   C   t,   r; 

to  o  o  o 


050iira»oicooji-t(NF-toco03 


COi-HOOt-lO^OOOiOCO-^-^CO 

iococoio-^ooiow^'^'<*t-c- 


ooc~m'*ooosm'nj'u5<3JM 
tooiO'^t-totoirD-«3^tOi-^as-^ 

COr-ttOtJ5lO^<3500-^»-HTj*O^CO 


to       (JJOOCON 


M     in     03t-,-iio 


5  c 
o  a) 


t>C0tOaiU5tOCOCOi-l'q>O>U500 
t-»OCSOOCOCOlOOJtO»OlOCOCO 
tOlCOlOOSOO-^tONCJ^NCOCO 


toco  -t-5 


tOt-ioOOlM'-i'^t-OOOmO'* 
t-TfootoN'^iraococo.-iOito 


-.en  3 


^        U5        C5 


■^XJNOr-i^aiCOCr-OOCOiftN 


O       .J 

o 


J3  3 
to  "  o  ™     • 
01  "  o  J_m  o; 

3  ?;  5  2  o  a 


"cbTj°n!tJ 


.Sf3 


i« 


106 


CO 
OS 


H 
Q 

«   S 


Eh 


H 
Q 

H 


o   ^ 

o   ?. 


<; 

H 

<; 
U 

Q 

z 

< 

VI 

P^ 


fe 


O  ° 


c4  CD 


C  g 


o  o 


00  t- M  CO  00  <D  •>*  CO  "*  U5  m  O  CO   >-" 
(NiOlMC^   e^  CO  U5  Tj- ,-1  .-1  00  rH   CO 


iot£>mcot-N>-iioooocoooo     t~ 

COCOMCO-tfCOCOCOCJC^i-li-lT-l        CJ 


(DinoiocoiO'^T-iine'ir-itDco     <o 

MCO-^^TfNintOlNCONMN       CO 


tD-^i-ic-eoNeooosocoiNNM      co 


W  O  iO  Oi -^  C^OS  O  O  (N  IrtCC  00   lO 
0>  to  >-l  N  CO  00  O  CO  t- 00  <S  CO  00   05 


U51Mt:~IMCOO!Oi-icJ!00«-^^ 


Tj- Ol  i-H  r-(  tr- O  1-1  •*  (M  CJ  "O  ■-!  O  O 
U3  03  CO  O  C£!  i-H -^  p-4  T-H  t-H  CO  ;D  f-l  CO 
r1         .H  rq  ,-1  r-l  r-l  N  r-H  i-H         t-h  i-l         rH 


tOtr-OOeJT)<0  10i-l05<-ICOCON 


cDin-Tfioioomo'-ioxsJcoio      tn 


TCtDNOr-liHOSeOt-OOCOl-ON 


o::3-n-^  C.2  «-id  ciii  SS-OT 
i-iejco-^iO'.ot-oo050t-<Nco 


»-        M       to 


•H         N         tH,-l,HeO 


,-1       i-i       rt       i-i(N 


U5       CO     'COO 


o 

KG 

o 
z 


,-,^;:^r4      CL, 


Eh    S 


0) 

^ 

M 

!^ 

O 

3 

O 

o 

^ 

3 

Si 

o 

c 

o 

11 
c 

o 

s 

■*-* 

— 

X 

S^i 


107 


CO 


^  M 


O 


►J 
o 
« 

Z 
H 
Q 

t3 
H 
OQ 

«; 

H 

cu 
<; 
u 

w 
p- 

>^ 

< 

►J 

Eh 

o 

<: 

PU 

o 

Q 
< 

Z 

H 

Ph 

t^ 

H 


> 


COM(Mt-OOQOO«OCOO>-l«l       OJ 
t- 00  O  i-<  lO  lO  CD  rj<  r-(  lO  00  lO  t-        »-l 


(M  ;D  .-H  i-l  t- «5  lO  Oi  t- O  05  C~  05       Ol 
CD  W  LO  irt  t-H  nt>  t- CO  as  CO  (N  t' (M       CD 


i3        cd  u 


CDOOOlOCDlOOSiniOmtOC-O        05 
lO  t- tH  C<J  Ci  lO  tH  CO  lO  t"^  lO  lO        t> 


OOOOCOOONCOiHlOOOOCONOO 
COOOCOlOt-lflt-OOOOCD-^lOTj* 


T)iNcot-oo.H(MooooNcoc-m 

OCOmoOCTS05'<a<OOtDOOTj<00> 


(MiHNSqcgi-HMMr-lT 


C0OOCDO-^C0-*05OO00C0       00 
■*  N  Oi  ■n<  t- Tj"  1-1  t~  ■*  lO  05  lO  ■*        00 

IN  C^  IM  ■^  CO  CJ  CO  Tl"  ca  (M  i-(  CO  IN       IN 


CO  a>  t- ■^  ■*  t- •*  t- 05  CO  lo  Tf  CO     io 

i-l  00  00 -^ -^  t-.  ^  CD  t>  lO  t>  00  CO   1-t 
CD  ifllC  O^  t>  lO  t>  O  lO  lO  CO  t^ -^   CD 


•^COINO'-li-lOiCOt-OOCOlfllN 


-^       00       OIN'^iCD 

CO      00      ir:  ■>*  CD  t- 


CD        IN        i-ICDr-(<J5 


CD        O>CO>-<00 


CO        IN        INr-ICO-* 


00        05        00 


lO  ■^  Tl< 


■OTIN 
•CO  00 


WUOHH°Uii-l^^iy:OTg 

i-HNCO-fincDt-OOCftO'-lcacO 


ij 
o 

o 


a>  3  °  o  S 

■33  Sa  >.S  S  ^ 
•fi.t:  o-^  !*  _  „ 


T3   0) 

si; 


108 

The  middle  50  percent  of  the  Normal  Schools,  comprising  seven 
in  number,  range  in  total  expense  from  $335  to  $260,  a  difference 
of  only  $75.  In  comparing  these  expenses  with  the  standard  at 
the  foot  of  Table  35  (page  106)  it  will  be  seen  that  the  average 
expense  of  the  Pennsylvania  schools,  $271,  is  higher  than  the  stand- 
ard expenses  for  (1)  the  selected  schools  at  $233  per  student 
enrolled;  (2)  the  thirty  unselected  schools  with  two-year  courses  at 
$225  and  (3)  the  unselected  schools  of  more  than  two-year  courses 
at  $193.  The  expense  in  all  the  Wisconsin  Normal  Schools  averages 
$313  and  in  the  Massachusetts  Schools  $370,  which  is  considerably 
higher  than  the  Pennsylvania  average  of  $271. 

Instructional  Expense. — Table  35  distributes  the  total 
per  capita  expense  of  instruction  for  each  Normal  School  and 
Table  36  (page  107)  distributes  the  same  data  on  the  basis  of 
an  attendance  week.  This  expense  ranges  from  $214  in  School  No. 
8  to  $86  in  School  No.  11,  while  the  seven  schools  comprising  the 
middle  50  percent  range  from  $161  in  School  No.  12  to  $110  in 
School  No.  6.  In  comparing  the  average  of  $130  per  student  for  the 
entire  group  with  the  standards  given  at  the  foot  of  the  column  it 
will  be  seen  that  the  cost  of  instruction  per  student  is  practically 
the  same,  except  in  the  Wisconsin  Normal  School  with  $178,  the 
selected  schools  with  $151  and  the  Massachusetts  Normal  Schools 
with  $222. 

These  comparisons  in  expenses  in  the  different  items  among  the 
various  schools  could  be  continued  almost  indefinitely,  conse- 
quently it  might  be  well  to  examine  Table  37  (page  109),  where  all 
of  the  items  of  expense  are  ranked  for  all  of  the  schools  and  from 
which  comparisons  can  be  more  readily  observed. 

Analysis  of  Expenses. — In  studying  the  expenses  of  the  Nor- 
mal Schools  in  the  various  component  parts  it  will  be  seen  in  Table 
37  that  School  No.  8  ranks  highest  in  total  expenses,  total  instruc- 
tion. Training  School,  and  operation,  and  that  School  No.  4,  ranking 
2  in  total  expenses,  ranks  1  in  expenses  of  general  control  and  2 
in  expenses  for  instruction  and  Training  School.  It  is  equally 
significant  that  Schools  Nos.  13  and  11,  with  high  total  enrollments 
and  ranking  12  and  13  in  total  expenses  and  in  expenses  of  general 
control,  rank  12  and  13  respectively  in  instruction  and  have 
an  average  rank  of  11.1  and  12.3.  In  fact  these  two  schools 
rank  11  or  lower  in  all  items  of  expense  except  in  Normal  School 


109 


C£)t-O0Tr-^00U5i-l0000C^iOT 


§1 

•5  2  a 


c  c 

01  o 


2  o  o  o 


°  2 


«OOJC-U5(ONi-lOOM>H'.3iN 


rtl!O000>C0t-lON-<j<ONr-l,-c 


m(MO>iOi-i;Dt>'*ooocOrHe^ 


OJCOiOt-t-^OCOCJ'-'t^WOON 


co-^coN^ait-i-^ioooc^OrH 


t-COU3'*NO»tDCO'-<OC<li-lOO 


l«Nt-NC0O<0>-l0»00e0rl>. 


»t-OOW!)<010<-l05r-l«MN 


rf^OWO'HrHO^COt-OOCOirtC'J 


3  « 

is 

oir; 

mo 


o      ^ 


C»       T-t 

CO    (M 
05 


pq 

<! 


MeO-*lO!Ot-W050i-iM« 


o  g 


a;  o 


".So 
2  yi-a 


.2  ts  m 
t5Sg 


041000COOOOe<5MOOOWO»t- 
rti-ir-(i-((NMIN(M<NM<Mr-ii-i 


0-H05lOCOO>OMOO;OOOMI> 
.IN  .-l,-ir-(  <N 


cO'^OJoo^Noit-oooosinoo 


MiO«Ot:-OaiOt>'^<NC^C-rH 


is  3 
O  "3 
Eh  m 


«  a 


.S-2 


ooooooooooooo 
ooooooooooooo 


■^^DNOtHi-lOlMt-OOComiM 


-— 


^c^wfuj^c-oooio--" 


110 

instruction  as  in  the  case  of  School  No.  13.  Schools  Nos.  5  and  8 
with  low  total  enrollments  rank  4,6  and  1.7,  respectively,  among 
the  schools  having  the  highest  average  rank  in  expenses.  There 
is  in  general  a  relative  close  agreement  in  the  rank  of  the  various 
items  of  expense  when  considered  comparatively  among  the  differ- 
ent schools;  however,  there  is  here  and  there  an  outstanding  excep- 
tion, for  example.  School  No.  1  ranks  6  in  total  expenses,  9  in 
general  control,  5  in  total  instruction,  and  3  in  maintenance. 
Training  School  and  auxiliary  agencies.  School  No.  4  ranks  1  or 
2  in  total  expenses,  general  control,  instruction,  and  Training 
Schools,  yet  it  ranks  7  in  operation  and  9  in  maintenance.  School 
No.  12  ranks  3  in  total  expenses,  and  yet  in  general  control  it 
ranks  8,  in  total  instruction  4,  in  Training  School  10,  in  operation 
4,  and  in  maintenance  and  Normal  School  instruction  1.  In  fact  the 
average  of  the  ranks  found  in  the  last  column  of  Table  37  is  a  figure 
indicating  in  a  general  way  the  relative  standing  of  each  of  the 
schools  in  expenditures.  When  comparing  these  averages  with  the 
rank  in  size  in  Column  1,  it  is  at  once  evident  that  an  inverse  ratio 
exists  between  the  schools  with  the  lowest  average  rank  in  expenses 
and  the  highest  rank  in  attendance,  and  vice  versa. 

These  differences  in  rank  can  probably  in  the  main  be  attributed 
to  local  needs,  and  to  the  early  individual  development  of  each 
school  under  private  control  without  any  state  standardization. 
Here  and  there  the  differences  probably  can  also  be  attributed 
to  dissimilar  ideals  in  planning  the  work  of  a  state  Normal 
School,  since  in  some  cases  it  is  known  that  practically  no  expense 
is  spared  in  developing  a  Training  School,  because  it  is  believed 
the  better  organized  this  department  of  the  school  is,  the  more 
efficiently  the  Normal  School  can  serve  its  real  purpose  of  training 
public  school  teachers.  Another  school  will  keep  down  this 
expense  through  some  kind  of  local  public  school  arrangement 
and  thus  be  enabled  to  appropriate  a  larger  percentage  of  the 
receipts  to  other  phases  of  the  school's  developments  such  as 
general  control,  auxiliary  agencies  and  operation.  Again,  the 
managements  of  the  different  schools  have  adopted  widely  diversi- 
fied salary  schedules.  This  is  an  important  factor  in  explain- 
ing the  gi'eat  variation  in  expenses  since  instruction  alone  com- 
prises 47  percent  of  the  total  expenses  for  all  the  Normal  Schools. 
In  general  the  cost  of  maintaining  some  of  the  Normal  Schools  is 


Ill 

very  much  out  of  proportion  to  the  standards  as  evidenced  by  the 
average  figures  for  all  the  schools  combined.  These  facts  will  be 
given  further  consideration  in  connection  with  the  apportionment 
of  the  appropriations  among  the  various  schools  and  the  analysis 
of  the  appropriations  in  relation  to  expenditures. 

Training  Schools. 

Table  39,  Column  2,  shows  the  cost  per  graduate  of  the 
Training  Schools  for  the  year  1921-22,  and  the  average  cost  for 
all  the  Normal  Schools  of  $135  with  a  range  from  $62  in  School 
No.  13  to  $382  in  School  No.  8.  This  difference  can  be  explained 
since  the  former  school  with  a  large  graduating  class  utilizes  public 
school  facilities  at  a  much  lower  cost  than  the  latter  which  owns, 
controls  and  finances  its  Training  School  with  approximately  the 
same  gross  cost,  but  on  a  basis  of  a  small  graduating  class.  School 
No.  1  has  a  student  body  and  graduating  class  nearly  as  large  as 
School  No.  13,  yet  it  expends  in  its  Training  School  over  twice  the 
total  amount  expended  by  the  latter,  and  on  the  basis  of  the  num- 
ber of  graduates  it  expends  just  five  times  as  much,  viz.,  $311  per 
graduate.  On  a  weekly  attendance  basis  School  No.  1  costs  $6.92 
in  comparison  with  $1.38  in  School  No.  13.  Here  again.  School 
No.  8  with  its  small  attendance  and  relatively  small  graduating 
class  costs  $8.49  per  week,  which  is  $5.49  higher  than  the  average 
amount  of  $3  for  all  of  the  Normal  Schools. 

TABLE  39. 

Cost  of  Training  Schools  per  Normal  School  Graduate  and  per 
Training  School  Pupil  per  Year  and  per 
Attendance  Week. 


No. 

NORMAL  SCHOOLS 

Rank 

in 

size 

Per  grad- 
uate per 
year 

Per  grad- 
uate per 
week 

Per  training 

school  pupil 

per  year 

Per   training 

school  pupil 

per  week 

1 

4 

6 

12 

10 

11 

1 

9 

13 

7 

8 

3 

5 

2 

$311 
243 
133 
253 
127 

97 
104 
382 
106 

78 
115 
110 

62 

$6.92 
5.40 
2.97 
5.63 
2.83 
2.16 
2.32 
8.49 
2.36 
1.73 
2.56 
2.46 
1.38 

$65 
48 
23 
45 
22 
34 
35 
97 
38 
55 
31 
59 
9 

$1.45 

2 

1.08 

3 

,52 

4 

1.00 

5 
6 

Edinboro 

,50 
.76 

7 

.79 

8 

2.16 

9 

.85 

10 

1.23 

11 

1? 

Shippensburg 

.68 
1.32 

13 

West  Chester 

.21 

135 

3.00 

34 

.76 

112 

Somewhat  similar  variations  can  be  pointed  out  in  the  cost  of 
the  Training  Schools  per  pupil  both  on  the  yearly  and  weekly 
bases,  as  shown  in  Columns  4  and  5  of  Table  39  (page  111).  These 
differences  in  the  cost  of  this  one  item  of  expense  can  undoubtedly 
be  accounted  for  first  because  of  the  type  of  training  necessitated 
by  local  public  school  conditions,  and  second  on  the  basis  of  the 
policy  of  individual  Normal  Schools  to  develop  the  Training 
Schools  as  their  most  essential  feature  with  a  consequent  higher 
cost.  This  is  especially  clear  in  Schools  Nos.  1,  4  and  8,  although 
in  the  latter  schools  the  proportionately  high  cost  is  also  caused 
by  the  relatively  small  student  body  and  small  graduating  class. 

To  analyze  thoroughly  the  expenses  of  the  Normal  Schools 
would  entail  a  great  deal  of  time  and  expense  and  would  necessitate 
visits  to  each  of  the  schools  to  get  first-hand  information  and 
data.  Undoubtedly  other  items  and  expenses  can  be  accounted 
for,  as  are  the  expenses  of  the  Training  Schools,  by  the  local  limit- 
ing conditions  and  the  varied  Normal  School  ideals  as  to  teacher 
training.  The  short-sighted  policy  in  the  management  of  some  of 
the  schools  during  the  period  of  private  ownership  and  control  has 
brought  about  conditions  in  some  of  the  schools  that  would 
necessarily  entail  a  varied  proportion  of  cost  under  the  item  of 
"maintenance  of  plant."  Differences  in  practice  relative  to  stu- 
dent welfare  have  caused  a  consequent  proportionate  difference  in 
the  auxiliary  agency  expenses.  The  general  control  expense 
columns  show  trem.endous  differences  among  the  schools  in  com- 
parison with  the  average  for  all  the  schools.  On  the  basis  of  the 
expense  statements  sent  to  the  Auditor-General's  Department,  it 
can  be  very  clearly  pointed  out  that  certain  items  in  some  of  the 
schools  are  very  much  in  excess  of  what  might  be  considered  rea- 
sonable costs,  at  least  in  proportion  to  the  needs  that  the  particular 
expenditure  is  to  serve.  It  would  seem  that  whatever  the  system 
of  purchases  is,  there  ought  to  be  a  check  as  to  cost  and  need 
before  the  expense  is  incurred,  especially  in  major  accounts,  either 
on  the  part  of  the  Local  Board  of  Trustees  or  some  state  agency 
before  the  account  is  submitted  to  the  Auditor-General  for 
payment. 

Housing  Expenses. — Tables  40  and  41  (page  113)  which 
analyze  the  housing  expenses,  include  the  dining  hall,  dormi- 
tory and  laundry  expenses.     It  will  be  seen  in  Columns  3  and 


113 

TABLE  40. 

Total  Dining  Hall  Expenses  and  Expenses  per  Capita  Boarding 
Student  and  Total  Number  of  Boarders  Including  Faculty 
and  Employes  per  Year  and  per  Attendance  Week. 


No. 

NORMAL 
SCHOOLS 

Rank 
in 
size 

Total 
expenses 

Per  capita 
boarding 
student 

Per  capita 

student  per 

att.  week 

Per  capita 

total  No. 

of  boarders 

Per  capita 

boarder  per 

att.  week 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Bloomsburg 

California 

Clarion 

East  Stroudsburg .  .  . 
Edinboro 

4 

6 

12 

10 

11 

1 

9 

13 

7 

8 

3 

5 

2 

$70,026 
54,915 
30,611 
70,875 
37,818 

107,846 
64,338 
25,936 
63,555 
65,601 
42,167 
55,295 

126,241 

$212 
199 
161 
209 

186 
183 
240 
186 
184 
160 
119 
160 
192 

$4.71 
4.45 
3.60 
4.65 
4.13 
4.07 
5.33 
4.15 
4.10 
3.56 
2.66 
3.56 
4.29 

$184 
172 
147 
182 
186 
148 
199 
158 
150 

$4.08 
3.84 
3.29 
4.06 
4.13 
3  28 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Kutztown 

Lock  Haven 

Mansfield 

Millersville 

Shippensburg 

Slippery  Rock 

West  Chester 

4.42 
3.52 
3.34 

11 
12 
13 

99 
142 
173 

2.22 
3.17 
3.85 

Total 

815,231 
62.710 

31,543 
54,103 

Pa.  average 

180 

303 
206 

4.00 

6.73 
4.57 

177 

265 

157 

3  95 

NORMAL  SCHOOL 
STANDARDS 

Illinois  State 

5  89 

3  48 

TABLE  41. 

Total   Dormitory  and   Laundry  Expenses  and   Expenses  per 

Capita  Resident  Student  and  per  Total  Number  of 

Residents  Including  Faculty  and  Employees 

PER  Year  and  per  Attendance  Week. 


No. 

NORMAL 

schools 

Rank 
in 
size 

Total 
expenses 

Per  capita 
resident 
student 

Per  capita 

student  per 

att.  week 

Per  capita 

total  No. 

of  residents 

Per  capita 
resident  per 
att.  week 

1 
2 

Bloomsburg 

California 

4 

6 

12 

10 

11 

1 

9 

13 

7 

8 

3 

5 

2 

$25,490 
15,463 
15,151 
24,430 
17,318 
61,461 
22,910 
17,038 
24,161 
43,494 
17,736 
33,558 
42,689 

$77 
59 
80 
72 

101 

104 
85 

122 
70 

127 
52 
97 
65 

$1.72 
1.33 
1.78 

1  61 

2  25 
2.32 
1  91 
2.72 
1.56 
2.84 
1.18 
2.16 
1.45 

$69 
51 
73 
62 

101 
86 
74 

113 
57 

46 
86 
58 

$1.54 
1  14 

3 

1  62 

4 
5 

East  Stroudsburg .  .  . 

1.40 
2  25 

6 

Indiana 

1  92 

7 
8 
9 

Kutztown 

Lock  Haven 

1.66 
2.52 
1  27 

in 

Millersville 

11 
12 
13 

Shippensburg 

Slippery  Rock 

West  Chester 

1.03 
1.92 
1.30 

Total 

360,804 
27,754 

8,083 
20,332 

83 

77 
78 

1.87 

1.71 
1.73 

74 

72 
61 

1  65 

NORMAL  SCHOOL 
STANDARDS 

Illinois  State 

1.60 
1  36 

114 

4  that  the  yearly  and  weekly  average  costs  of  the  table  board  per 
student  are  $180  and  $4  with  a  range  of  $240  and  $5.33  in  School 
No.  7,  to  $119  and  $2.66  in  School  No.  11.  The  middle  50  percent 
of  this  group  ranges  in  cost  from  $199  and  $4.45  to  $161  and  $3.60. 
It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  three  most  expensive  schools 
show  yearly  and  weekly  costs  per  student  of  $240  and  $5.33, 
$212  and  $4.71  and  $209  and  $4.65,  while  the  three  least  expensive 
ones  show  an  average  of  $160  and  $3.56,  $160  and  $3.56  and  $119 
and  $2.66  per  student  respectively. 

The  average  yearly  cost  in  the  Pennsylvania  Normal  Schools 
per  student  for  dormitory  and  laundry  expenses,  as  shown  in 
Table  41,  is  $83  or  $1.87  per  week.  The  variation  in  this  expense 
per  student  is  equally  as  marked  as  those  of  the  dining  halls. 
Combining  the  figures  for  Pennsylvania  schools  they  show  a  range 
of  from  $295  and  $6.55  in  School  No.  8,  the  most  expensive  school, 
to  $174  and  $3.86  in  School  No.  11,  the  least  expensive  school. 

The  Pennsylvania  Normal  Schools  are  essentially  boarding 
schools  and  in  this  respect  differ  from  those  of  most  of  the  other 
states,  consequently  it  has  been  difficult  to  obtain  comparable 
data  on  housing  expenses.  Such  data  as  were  obtainable,  however, 
show  that  the  Illinois  State  Normal  has  an  average  yearly  housing 
cost  of  $380  or  a  weekly  cost  of  $8.44  per  student,  while  that  of 
four  Massachusetts  schools  is  $303  per  year  or  $6.73  per  week, 
both  of  which  are  higher  than  the  average  for  the  Pennsylvania 
Normal  Schools.  Since  all  the  Normal  Schools  charge  $7  per  week 
to  cover  housing  expenses,  with  the  exception  of  School  No.  11 
which  charges  $6.50,  it  is  evident  that  practically  all  of  them 
are  making  money  in  varied  amounts.  The  differences  in  this 
expense  indicate  that  some  of  the  schools  are  spending  too  much 
in  housing,  while  others  are  not  spending  enough.  Every  student 
should  be  assured  a  reasonable  return  in  comfort  for  the  amount 
of  money  expended,  and  there  should  be  some  standard  upon 
which  to  base  this. 

The  question  naturally  arises  here  as  to  whether  the  Normal 
Schools  have  the  right  to  charge  the  student  more  for  housing 
than  is  actually  expended.  Probably  some  part  of  the  profit 
should  be  spent  to  help  finance  plant  operation,  as  this  can 
legitimately  be  called  part  of  the  housing  expense,  or  perhaps  a 
certain  percent  of  the  cost  of  heat,  light  and  water  should  be 


115 

transferred  to  the  housing  account.  It  would  seem  that  the 
State  Normal  Schools  should  create  a  limited  reserve  fund  to  be 
expended  at  the  discretion  of  the  local  Board  of  Trustees  on  the 
basis  of  a  fair  profit,  to  be  held  to  cover  such  unforeseen  losses  as 
may  occur  from  time  to  time  in  the  Housing  Department,  such  as 
are  caused  by  fluctuations  in  the  cost  of  food  products  and  unfore- 
seen emergencies  in  securing  help,  equipment  and  supplies. 

Of  course  it  must  be  assumed  that  if  the  Normal  School  does  not 
make  a  profit  through  these  sources  to  meet  expenses  when  the 
state  appropriations  are  inadequate,  an  equal  amount  should 
be  supplied  by  larger  state  appropriations.  The  causes  and  con- 
ditions underlying  these  diversified  facts  should  receive  a  more 
extended  investigation  in  order  to  insure  a  higher  degree  of 
standardization  in  the  distribution  of  state  appropriations. 

Salaries  of  Normal  School  and  Training 
School  Teachers. 

Tables  42,  43  and  44  (pages  116, 117  and  118)  show  the  total  dis- 
tribution of  salaries  paid  out  on  a  monthly  basis  to  the  teachers  of 
the  thirteen  Normal  Schools  according  to  the  requisitions  fur- 
nished by  the  Normal  Schools  to  the  Auditor- General. 


116 


B 


< 

t— 1 

u< 

(M 

o 

05 
1— 1 

09 

Pd 

« 

l-H 

o 

^— V 

tf 

•<11 

fa 

ri«i 

<• 

>-4 

^ 

O 

« 

Tl 

. 

Ui 

o 

c 

(M 

^ 

P5 

CQ 

U 

<U 

1-5 

< 

< 

M 

fa 
Q 

0) 

H 

a 

<1 

u 

U 

1^ 

«5l 

>4 
•J 

C 

2 

OT 
S 

1-1 

M 

3 

X 

bo 

E 

o 

U 

s 

fa 

H 

o 

VJ 

■t; 

« 

o 

fa 

H 

P 

n 

l-H 

« 

H 

m 

Q 

03 

H 

?t-  I^eo  £5?  o  eJr^  CO  00  S?  N 

t-COO^Xt-U5W00N.-"U5COt* 


padojua 


»ow^caccoc^i-<xa5w<ti-H 

irtOC^C-NCOlAOOt^OOCOt- 

TfOTfOI^rimNIMi-OOlCO 


;0  «0  i-l  Tf  U5  00 


T-l.-HOOCOCCCOlCt^t-t-HrHCS'^ 

•"-'■^ooiocot^^aiW^oot-HO 


MCOt-WCTTj-C^OlTOi-lONO 


0005»-<C^t'CO«f-tC<10U5Tl'CO 


sauBiBg 
uWipaj^ 


WOt>t^iO00OOCS!r>NU500 


Bjaqocax 

}0  -OM  IBIOX 


SJo  SToO  «>  I^O  CO  «0  00  ^  lO  M 


0000iON'»J'aj00O>'*Nt-«3M 


S3UBIBS 


6i8  o?  098$ 


638  o;  OfS^ 


688  01  0Z8$ 


618  01  008$ 


663  o^  083$ 


lOCOOCOOlOOtOlOCDOlOO 
«>05  0  00  0IMO.-Ht-5DOINO 
TtC0U5OU5t-lC-^lrt-<3tl0;0U5 


6iZ  o}  093$ 


<Ni-l.-ii-i>-iN       iNi-l 


1-I.-11-H       -N 


■  Ni-i^-im    -lOi-i    -in 


6SS  o?  ot2$ 


N      ■■^OrH.-HO.-IN 


68Z  01  032$ 


6T3  oi  002$ 


661  01  081$ 


6il  oi  09X$ 


6SI  oi  o?'T$ 


68t  01  031$ 


6XX  oi  001$ 


66  01  08$ 


62,  01  09$ 


69  oi  01-$ 


0^$  ncqi  esaq 


azjs  u;  Jju^a 


OiCOr- '»— '^CO^W 


•*>-INC--*0>NtO»OMN^U5 


0-<J<NCO-*i-lt-T-CTliOT-<f;0 


CO  O  OT  ■^  r-<  «>  ■*     •N-a'MCOCO 


t— (r-t^OJ      •COCO'-HCOrH      -CO^ 


OOi-H      -r^CO 


NCO      -COCO 


N     -N       N 


■^«DC^Or-l,-10)C0t-00e0l0N 


gas 
So 
8m 


<C105-«)'iO«0t-000>Oi-<lNC0 


tCOO  i-IOONCO 


00  U3  U>  00  O  rH 


O 

o 


■  es  2 


O    03    « 

y  S-o  go 


:is 


■^  5  CO-3J3 
"  :>.^  S  C  ^ 
«5'*j  c  °  S 

^  bX  c  n  °; 
«i;5  tio.5.2  3 


p 


117 


« 

u 

Pk 

W) 

tf 

ffi 

Q^ 

< 

M 

H 

J 

o 

o 

a 

u 

M 

iJ 

<! 

S 

(« 

O 

iz; 

Ol 

Ix, 

1 

o 

T-H 

m 

m 

w 

1—1 

« 

« 

y 

<« 

o 

hJ 

U4 

<; 

It| 

;-( 

jyj 

E-i 

<l) 

< 

4J 

p 

< 

Tl 

u 

tf 

c 

CO 

7; 

Oh 

Q 

0) 

H-1 

72 

< 

p^ 

1^ 

H 

« 

s 

O 

rt 

< 

02 

ft 

•S 

>^ 

« 

ID 

J 

:i?: 

»-< 

w 

^ 

w 

M 

E 

S 

u 
o 

o 

IZ 

o 

H 

P 

P9 

i-i 

« 

H 

r/3 

i-< 

Q 

r/T 

M 

o: 

< 

W2 

Eh 
O 

Eh 


ZZ6I 

355  (10) 
369    (2) 
254(11) 
233  (13) 
390    (8) 
624    (3) 
249(12) 

CO 

to  r~  -H  u5  -J.  o 

$      457 

407 

1,121 

507 

566 

paiiojna  jnapnig 

!?«■«?«  ■mo?  S";^ 

86(11) 
91    (8) 
71  (12) 
131    (4) 
87  (10) 

05 

o> 

c^tooom-^ooitc 

1 

$58,513 
35,425 
42,604 
56,749 
53,223 
84,044 
50,115 
32,891 
46,005 
47,682 
48,348 
71,097 
73,341 

o- 

.tjBIBg  uBipaj^ 

■BS"- 

v-^^.- 

CO 

o 

««5M<N-.lNOI»r~T 

$215 
180 
163  ( 
230 
207 
156  ( 
220 
240 
183(1 
173(1 
200    ( 
202    ( 
220 

sjaiioBox 
■ON  iBjox 

m!NcqN(NO-irHMcoeoo<m 

CI- 

$466 
393 
500 
583 
500 
725 
500 
416 
575 
466 
500 
625 
500 

U5 

6i8  01  098$ 

•    ■ 

rH       . 

"^  : 

" 

6S8  o;  0^88 

'^ 

"* 

688  01  0S8S 

"" 

->  (M  -^ 

-1  M 

C^  -H 

« 

618  01  008S 

•  n 

■  «  M 

■      ■  rt  -1  CO 

" 

66Z  0%  08Z$ 

^  »H  ^ 

IM      •      ■  «  CO  rt 

o 

6iZ  oj  09Z$ 

N  rt 

•  IN  -•  -1  «      .  U3  ,-1 

>o 

o 

6SZ  01  oi^ZS 

-H       •■^f.-H-HlOrtlN        .       . 

IN 

68Z  01  OZZS 

OiCC»-l^'«^CCrt<N      .      -,-H^«5 

CO 

6IZ  01  OOZS 

'J<"C^"5'*05»-iC^-*C<I^QOC^ 

U5 

661  01  08T8 

■  •*  c^  N  ■* -^ -. -H  m  M  •*  •*     • 

Ol 

6Zl  oi  091$ 

m  o  m  -1  -H  lo  ■* 

o»  •>1<  O  CO  CO 

6SI  01  0^1$ 

rt  ,-H  •*  ^      .  _  C<5 

lO  rt 

CO  IN 

So 

681  01  OZIS 

^-1  i-t  ,-1 

■  00 

N  CO 

f»  -H 

<r> 

611  oi  001$ 

•*    ■ « 

-<  •* 

•      •  Ol 

s 

66  01  08$ 

•      ■  IN 

•^ 

rt      •  -< 

U5 

61  oi  09$ 

.  ,-1  ,1 

M  CO 

'^ 

t~ 

6fi  Ol  01-$ 

•H       ■  ^ 

M  -H 

0^$  n«qi  ssaT 

IN  — 

-H  CO 

CO 

■>C 

- 

ezig  ui  nn^H 

•*«)MO  —  «O>t<3t-00TOiON 

NORMAL    SCHOOLS 

No. 

a  o  o 

—  N  C 

1 

3 

♦J 

3 

d 

11 

c 
> 
K 

■  E 

2-1 

Hi 

<;  i<5  cc 

05  O  — 

,1: 
C 

1 

c 

1 

C 

C' 

o 

? 

■< 

118 


< 


a, 
w 

a 
sc 

H 

J 
o 
o 

X 
o 

CO 

o 


H 

o 

H 

<: 
< 

< 
S 


r-l  t-, 

i  ^ 


CQ 
< 

CO 


E4 
O 
Eh 


2 

c 

< 

M 

3 

u 

hn 

o 

f-) 

|ii 

H 

s-^ 

00 

ZZ6I  aisnpBJO 

cJ'? 

ioMtO 

-1  rt  .-<  00  —  OS  t- T- 

3 

OS  "5  00  T-(  O  O  C- 00  t- 00  lO  CJ  t!0                   C 
to  O  W  CO  rHOS  OOCOOS  to  OS  O  U3                    C 
MN<-'N.-1                CO                       rH                    ., 
6» 

panojug  rjuapms 
«d 

1     • 

0 

0 

CO  ■>!' CO  N  to  OS  t- •-!  U5  00  CJ  O  ^ 

CO -^  ■>*  lO  00  N  t- -^  CO  to  t- f-i  O                   0 

meor-itONNNt-copj.-i«M             o 

BaUBlBg 
IB^OX 

$34,497 
17,916 
4,885 
25,904 
10,409 
20,929 
12,350 
16,596 
17,721 
14,029 
11,833 
11.721 
17,063 

216.459 

SaiJEIBg 

UBipaj\[ 

to    ■ 

00     ■ 

■intoinvoiMO     oc 

■OC-OOSi-ilO         r-C 

oin        •     o 

MO           ■CO 

BjaqoBax 

JO  •0^[  IB^OJ, 

00      ■ 

•wint-ast-rH    -lOt 

•-I       o 

6Se  o;  0I'£$ 

"  :    '^ 

686  0%  028$ 

'.'^'^    : 

•    •     e<i 

6X6  oi  006$ 

:^ 

'."^    '. 

■    ■     N 

662  o;  082$ 

"^  ; 

'^ 

6i2  0?  092$ 

:  '."^  :  ;  : 

:      '^ 

692o?0l'2$ 

'"'   ; 

■CO     ■ 

■* 

z 

662  0^022$ 

l-^     ;     ;     ;Ca 

■N        lO 

c 

c 

612  o^  002$ 

(M     ■ 

■.-|TJ<,-I      .rHC 

jco     in 

c 

661  Oi  081$ 

o   • 

'.'^  : 

■to      ■rt      ■      -Cv 

1    ■      o 
■     N 

6il  0%  091$ 

•CO      -r- 

■       ■     a 

■■.■r 

691  0?  01-1$ 

■T-i             C-. 

■  ^c-    .    . 

N    1    CO 

o 

661  o;  021$ 

■    ■    -^ 

(N    1  t- 

'I 

6IX  o?  001$ 

■     ■     -(N 

•     ;M     ;     ■ 

N    1  to 

> 

68  o;  08$ 

■     N 

■    1  N 

73 

a 

61  o?  09$ 

■    •eo-.t 

■    1  t- 

C] 

69  01  OH 

•••■<* 

■    1   TC 

0t$  nsq?  Bsaq 

«D     . 

K       to 

■a 

azjS  ni  JiHEji 

■*tONOrt.-(<35COt>OOCOlO 

fl 

i 

TRAINING  SCHOOL 
No. 

HOC 

.-INC 

•  3    ■    • 

:.§  :  : 
:  §  o  ;■ 

*  >-•   ^   •< 

Ttintc 

7  Kutztown 

8  Lock  Haven 

9  Mansfield 

10  Millersville 

11  Shippensburg 

12  Slippery  Rock 

13  Westchester 

Total 

Average 

C4 

1 
XI 

u 

3 

a 
>. 

o 

119 

Table  42  (page  116)  shows  that  the  median  monthly  teachers' 
salary  for  all  Normal  Schools  combined  is  $190.  The  median 
salaries  for  the  individual  Normal  Schools  range  from  $230  in 
School  No.  8  to  $148  in  School  No.  6.  Among  the  Normal  Schools 
constituting  the  middle  50  percent  of  the  group  the  range  extends 
from  $205  in  School  No.  12  to  $176  in  School  No.  10,  a  difference 
of  $29.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  median  salary  for  the 
group  of  all  Normal  Schools,  $190,  is  practically  the  midpoint 
between  the  extremes  of  this  middle  group  of  seven.  The  extreme 
differences,  therefore,  in  these  median  salaries  will  be  found  at  the 
low  end  of  the  distribution  in  Schools  Nos.  6,  9  and  3  and  the  upper 
end  of  the  distribution  in  Schools  Nos.  8,  4  and  13. 

Naturally  the  median  salaries  do  not  tell  the  complete  story 
concerning  the  differences  that  prevail  among  the  thirteen  Normal 
Schools.  The  complete  range  in  salaries  for  example  in  School 
No.  6  extends  from  $40  per  month  to  $340  per  month,  while  in 
School  No.  7  and  School  No.  8  with  one  exception,  it  extends 
from  $140  to  $340  per  month.  Additional  information  is  neces- 
sary in  order  to  make  a  more  complete  study  of  the  salaries  paid 
in  the  same  departments  of  the  different  schools,  and  among  the 
instructors  of  the  same  and  different  ranks  in  each  school  respec- 
tively. However,  Tables  43  and  44  (pages  117  and  118)  show  con- 
clusively that  these  variations  in  complete  distribution  of  median 
salaries  do  exist  in  faculties  as  constituted  both  in  the  Normal 
School  and  in  the  Training  School. 

In  the  next  to  the  last  column  of  Table  42  (page  116)  will  be 
found  the  amount  of  salary  paid  per  student  enrolled  for  all  the 
Normal  Schools,  viz.,  $130,  and  also  for  each  of  the  individual 
Normal  Schools  ranking  from  $220  per  student  in  School  No. 
8  to  $88  per  student  in  School  No.  11.  The  average  salaries  among 
the  seven  schools  constituting  the  middle  50  percent  of  the  group 
range  from  $153  to  $113  per  student.  Comparing  these  with  the 
rank  of  the  schools  in  student  enrollment  it  will  be  noticed  that 
School  No.  11,  ranking  13  in  salary  per  student,  ranks  3  in  size. 
This  school  while  ranking  4  in  number  of  teachers  also  ranks  2 
in  the  largest  number  of  students  per  teacher  (Table  33)  and  5 
in  median  salary.  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  the  low  per  capita 
cost  in  salary  is  largely  due  to  the  smaller  faculty  per  student 
enrolled,  and  also  on  account  of  a  median  salary  slightly  above 


120 

the  median  for  all  the  Normal  School  teachers.  School  No. 
2  ranks  12  in  the  amount  of  money  paid  in  salary  per  student, 
while  it  ranks  6  in  total  enrollment  and  9  in  median  salary.  How- 
ever, this  same  school  ranks  3  in  the  large  number  of  students 
per  teacher  (Table  33)  and  10  in  the  size  of  its  faculty.  Con- 
sequently it  is  quite  evident  that  the  lower  cost  per  student  is  due 
to  the  low  salaries  paid  and  the  smaller  faculty  per  student  enrolled. 
School  No.  6  ranking  10  in  per  capita  total  salary  also  ranks  8  in 
teachers  per  number  of  students  enrolled  (Table  33),  but  it  ranks 
13  or  lowest  in  the  median  salaries  paid  per  teacher. 

Special  attention  is  called  to  the  high  instructional  expense  of 
School  No.  8,  which  ranks  highest  in  total  salaries  paid  per  student 
enrolled,  highest  in  median  salary  paid  per  teacher  and  12  or  next 
to  the  smallest  in  student  enrollment  per  teacher  (Table  33). 
Another  case  in  point  is  that  of  School  No.  4,  which  ranks  2  in 
highest  total  salaries  per  student  enrolled,  2  in  the  highest  median 
salaries  paid  per  teacher,  11  in  the  number  of  teachers  per  student 
enrolled  (Table  33),  and  10  in  size,  indicative  of  the  high  amount  of 
salary  per  student  due  to  the  higher  salaries  and  the  smaller  per- 
centage of  students  per  teacher.  School  No.  5  ranks  3  in  the  total 
amount  of  salary  paid  per  student  enrolled,  7  in  median  salary 
paid,  11  in  size  and  13  in  the  smallest  number  of  students  per 
teacher.  This  again  illustrates  that  the  higher  costs  of  salary  per 
student  is  due,  not  so  much  to  the  higher  median  salary,  but 
rather  to  the  size  of  the  school  and  the  large  faculty  as  shown  by 
the  small  number  of  students  per  teacher. 

In  the  last  column  of  Table  42  (page  116)  the  total  salaries  are 
distributed  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  graduates  in  1922.  It 
will  be  observed  that  the  variations  per  graduate  are  even  greater 
than  the  variations  in  salaries  per  student  enrolled,  also  that  the 
causes  for  these  variations  in  the  different  schools  are  due  to  the 
number  of  graduates  exclusively  and  also  to  the  number  of 
graduates  in  proportion  to  the  entire  student  body. 

The  Pennsylvania  average  teacher's  salary  per  student  enrolled, 
$130,  is  higher  than  the  group  averages  of  the  unselected  schools 
with  two-year  courses  of  $116  and  the  unselected  schools  with  more 
than  two-year  courses  of  $121,  while  it  is  lower  than  that  of  the 
individual  states  with  the  Minnesota  schools  of  $144,  the  Wiscon- 


121 

sin  schools  of  $175  and  the  Massachusetts  schools  of  $138  and  the 
selected  schools  of  $166. 

In  Table  43  (page  117)  a  complete  distribution  of  the  salaries  of 
Normal  School  teachers  exclusive  of  the  Training  School  faculties 
is  shown  on  a  monthly  basis  for  each  of  the  Normal  Schools  and 
for  all  the  Normal  Schools  combined.  The  median  for  Pennsyl- 
vania Normal  School  teachers  is  $193  per  month.  School  No.  8 
ranks  highest  with  a  median  of  $240  and  School  No,  6  lowest  with 
a  median  of  $156.  The  salaries  of  the  middle  50  percent  of  the 
group  extends  from  $220  to  $173,  a  difference  of  $47  in  salaries 
per  month  between  the  Normal  Schools  ranking  4  and  10  among 
the  group.  The  three  schools  paying  the  highest  salaries  per 
student  enrolled  are  Nos.  8,  5  and  4,  with  $146,  $144  and  $143 
respectively,  and  the  three  schools  paying  the  lowest  salaries  are 
Nos.  2,  11  and  9,  with  $66,  $71  and  $86  respectively.  In  other 
words  the  rank  of  the  middle  50  percent,  seven  schools,  extends 
from  $131  to  $87,  a  difference  of  $47  per  student  enrolled.  The 
difference  in  salaries  per  month  between  the  first  and  thirteenth 
school  in  rank  is  $80,  an  amount  $14  greater  than  the  amount 
expended  per  student  in  the  Normal  School  ranking  lowest  in  the 
list. 

In  Table  44  (page  118)  the  salaries  paid  in  the  Training  School 
departments  are  analyzed.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  median  salary 
is  $180,  the  average  per  capita  cost  of  Normal  School  student 
enrolled  is  $38  and  the  cost  per  Normal  School  graduate  is  $120. 
This  variation  in  the  salaries  of  the  Training  School  faculties 
exists  among  the  different  Normal  Schools  in  much  the  same 
proportion  as  has  been  pointed  out  in  the  Normal  School  faculties 
and  of  all  the  Normal  School  teachers  combined. 

Since  the  departments  in  the  various  schools  administering  the 
uniform  state  course  of  study  are  practically  the  same,  it  is 
evident  that  (1)  some  of  the  schools  are  either  paying  salaries 
which  are  too  high  or  others  are  paying  salaries  which  are  too  low 
for  the  same  quality  of  work,  and  (2)  some  of  the  schools  have  too 
many  teachers  per  student,  or  some  do  not  have  enough.  These 
facts  are  vital  since  instruction  constitutes  47  percent  of  the  total 
Normal  School  expenses  ranging  from  37  percent  in  School  No.  2 
to  56  percent  in  Schools  Nos.  1  and  13,  with  the  others  distributed 
between  a  40  and  50  percent  range  (Table  38). 


122 

Many  of  these  schools  with  the  larger  teaching  force  per  student 
enrolled  could  accommodate  a  much  larger  number  of  students 
without  making  substantial  additions  to  their  faculties,  but 
these  schools  are  receiving  more  money  proportionately  with  their 
small  student  body,  than  other  schools  with  larger  pupil  enroll- 
ments and  consequently  additional  departments  and  personnel, 
irrespective  of  their  service  to  the  state.  These  facts  demonstrate 
the  importance  of  a  most  careful  consideration  of  the  variations  in 
salaries,  since  this  expense  constitutes  the  chief  item  in  the  amount 
of  the  appropriation  to  be  apportioned  to  the  different  schools  by 
the  State  Department  of  Public  Instruction. 

The  Purpose  of  and  Need  for  Normal  Schools  in  the 
State  and  the  Facilities  for  Meeting  Such  Needs. 

According  to  investigations  made  by  the  Teachers'  Bureau  of 
the  State  Department  of  Public  Instruction'  the  number  of  new 
teachers  required  in  Pennsylvania  each  year  is  upwards  of  five 
thousand.  In  1919  there  were  approximately  1,850  prospective 
teachers  graduated  from  the  Pennsylvania  State  Normal  Schools, 
while  it  was  found  that  there  was  need  of  about  3,000  new  teachers 
in  the  public  schools  in  the  rural  districts  under  the  supervision 
of  county  superintendents.  This  would  indicate  that  approxi- 
mately upward  of  2,000  teachers  are  required  in  Pennsylvania  in 
the  boroughs  and  cities  of  over  5,000  population.^  The  Normal 
School  principals  reported  that  in  their  judgment  an  average  of 
only  about  15  percent  of  the  1919  graduates  entered  the  rural 
schools.  In  other  words  there  were  about  275  teachers  graduated 
from  the  Normal  Schools  that  year  to  supply  the  3,000  vacancies 
in  schools  under  county  superintendents'  supervision.^ 

In  1922  there  were  1,797  graduates  in  the  thirteen  State  Normal 
Schools  of  Pennsylvania  with  an  average  of  138  per  school.  In 
reply  to  questionnaires  sent  to  Normal  School  principals  relative 
to  this  year's  graduates,  they  reported  that  approximately  15 
percent  of  the  1,797  graduates  or  265  teachers  entered  the  rural 
schools.  It  must  be  remembered  that  this  number  includes  those 
teaching  in  rural  High  Schools  and  Graded  Schools  and  that  the 
number  of  Normal  School  graduates  entering  the  10,000  one- 
teacher  schools  of  the  state  is  negligible.    According  to  the  Normal 

'Study  in  Teacher  Shortage,  Department  of  Public  Instruction,  1919-20.     (Unpublished.) 
'King.  LeRoy  A.— Status  of  Rural  Teachers  in  Pennsylvania,  U.  S.  Bulletin  No.  34,  1921. 


123 

School  principals,  approximately  90  percent  of  the  graduates  of 
Normal  Schools  who  are  teaching  are  employed  in  the  cities  and 
boroughs  of  the  state. 

In  June,  1923,  there  will  be  in  round  numbers  2,450  Normal 
School  students  graduated  with  certificates  to  teach  in  the  state 
of  Pennsylvania,  a  considerable  increase  over  1922.  If  the  per- 
centage of  teachers  entering  the  rural  schools  is  about  the  same  as 
in  1919,  and  there  is  no  evidence  to  think  otherwise,  there  will  be 
approximately  350  teachers  entering  rural  schools,  leaving  a 
balance  of  2,100  graduates  to  fill  the  vacancies  in  the  cities  and 
boroughs  exclusive  of  Philadelphia  and  Pittsburgh.  There  will  still 
remain  at  least  2,500  to  3,000  vacancies  to  be  filled  over  the  state 
should  the  graduates  of  the  Normal  Schools  all  teach  in  Penn- 
sylvania. 

In  response  to  a  questionnaire,  only  three  of  the  Normal  School 
principals  reported  that  their  schools  are  practically  filled  to  their 
capacity.  The  remainder  of  the  schools  reported  that  approxi- 
mately 1,100  boarding  students  and  1,300  day  students  can  be 
accommodated  in  addition  to  the  1922-23  enrollment.  If  to  these 
totals  is  added  the  1,000  students  (see  Table  49)  enrolled  in  the 
secondary  school  departments  and  the  special  courses  not  author- 
ized to  give  certificates  at  their  completion,  it  is  apparent  that 
approximately  3,400  additional  students  could  be  accommodated 
in  the  Pennsylvania  Normal  Schools  this  year  for  preparation  to 
teach  in  the  public  schools  of  the  state. 

Excluding  Philadelphia  and  Pittsburgh  with  their  own  Normal 
Schools  it  is  extremely  doubtful  from  the  above  figures  whether 
the  Normal  Schools  can  supply  for  some  time  to  come  the  teacher 
needs  in  our  rural  districts  through  our  present  Normal  School 
organization.  The  Normal  School  principals  with  the  approval  of 
the  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  organized  a  new 
Normal  School  course  particularly  intended  to  specialize  in  the 
training  of  elementary,  junior  high  school,  and  rural  school 
teachers.  Six  of  the  Normal  School  principals  report  that  in  1922- 
23 — the  present  year — not  a  single  student  in  their  schools  has 
elected  the  rural  school  course.  They  report  that  there  is  a  general 
feeling  among  the  students  that  they  do  not  wish  to  teach  in  the 
rural  schools  on  account  of  the  teaching  and  living  conditions  and 
in  most  cases  the  lower  salaries.    On  the  basis  of  these  facts,  it 


124 

would  seem  that  the  Normal  Schools  are  not  of  du*ect  service  in 
training  teachers  for  the  rural  schools.  In  1920  there  were,  for 
example,  as  few  as  one  or  two  Normal  School  graduates  among  the 
150  or  175  one-room  rural  schools  in  some  counties  of  the  state/ 

The  question  might  be  raised  in  this  connection  whether  the 
Normal  Schools  should  not  organize  ways  and  means,  apart  from 
the  regular  and  special  courses,  to  train  rural  school  teachers  both 
in  preparation  and  in  service,  for  the  state  of  Pennsylvania.  How 
can  this  be  accomplished?  Undoubtedly  many  prospective 
teachers  and  teachers  in  service  are  receiving  training  through 
the  extension  courses  or  the  summer  sessions.  In  fact  one  of  the 
Normal  School  principals  just  recently  stated  that  he  believed  that 
the  best  service  that  his  school  can  render  in  the  way  of  training 
rural  school  teachers  is  to  provide  a  type  of  extension  course  that 
will  reach  the  rural  school  teachers  in  service  in  the  rural  districts. 

If  the  training  of  teachers  is  to  be  accomplished  in  part  through 
the  extension  courses,  then  instead  of  the  extension  work  being 
necessarily  self-supporting  a  certain  amount  of  state  appropriation 
should  be  designated  to  be  spent  definitely  for  extension  work, 
particularly  among  the  rural  school  teachers.  One  of  the  Normal 
Schools  has  established  four  rural  school  centers  this  year  in 
addition  to  a  number  of  centers  in  cities  and  larger  boroughs. 
These  rural  centers  are  in  part  financed  by  the  profits  from  the 
larger  urban  extension  classes.  It  is  generally  known  that  most  of 
the  extension  courses  are  carried  on  in  the  cities  where  a  large 
proportion  of  the  teachers  are  already  Normal  School  graduates, 
and  where  in  the  case  of  a  number  of  schools,  an  extra  tuition 
charge  is  made  for  granting  credits  which  are  forwarded  to  some 
college  or  university.  This  is  not  the  kind  of  Normal  School 
extension  work  that  is  most  needed  in  the  state  to  help  train  the 
5,000  or  more  teachers  with  inadequate  academic  and  professional 
training.  It  is  the  latter  group  that  needs  the  Normal  School 
training  for  which  adequate  state  appropriation  should  be  allotted. 

The  Normal  Schools  are  also  training  a  constantly  growing 
number  of  summer  session  students  as  shown  by  the  enrollments 
of  1921  and  1922.  (See  Tables  33  and  49.)  It  would  probably  be 
a  wise  provision  if  a  definite  amount  of  money  were  laid  aside  to 
be  used  exclusively  for  the  training  of  teachers  in  the  summer 

iKing,  URoy  A.— Status  of  Rural  Teachers  in  Pennsylvania.  U.  S.  Bulletin  No.  34,  1921. 


125 

sessions.  In  other  words,  might  it  not  be  well  for  the  state  to 
appropriate  a  certain  amount  of  money  to  the  Normal  Schools  (1) 
to  train  teachers  in  the  regular  courses  and  such  special  courses  as 
are  authorized  for  which  certificates  are  issued,  (2)  to  train  teachers 
in  the  summer  sessions,  and  (3)  to  train  teachers  in  service  through 
extension  work,  particularly  extension  work  to  reach  the  rural 
school  teachers? 

Again,  it  should  be  pointed  out  that  more  than  twenty  states  in 
the  United  States  are  now  providing  teacher  training  for  rural 
teachers  through  the  High  Schools  and  the  County  Training 
Schools  subsidized  by  the  state.  It  is  not  our  purpose  to  enter  into 
the  merits  of  this  question  as  to  whether  or  not  such  a  temporary 
agency  should  be  established  for  the  training  of  the  teachers  in 
Pennsylvania.  However,  it  should  be  considered  in  answering 
the  question  of  whether  all  money  for  teacher-training  purposes 
should  be  exclusively  appropriated  to  the  Normal  Schools  as  the 
chief  agency  for  the  training  of  public  school  teachers,  or  whether 
a  larger  amount  should  be  appropriated  to  help  finance  all  teacher- 
training  work  in  the  state,  part  of  this  to  be  used  for  such 
temporary  agencies  apart  from  the  State  Normal  Schools  and 
Schools  or  Departments  of  Education  in  colleges  and  universities. 

The  Normal  Schools  of  Pennsylvania  as  now  constituted  are 
not  adequately  serving  the  needs  of  rural  schools.  It  is  believed 
that  a  step  forward  would  be  taken  if  a  careful  study  could  be  made 
of  such  constructive  measures  as  would  especially  train  teachers  for 
the  rural  and  small  community  schools,  to  be  subsidized  by  suffi- 
cient appropriation  of  state  money  to  make  such  training  facilities 
possible. 

Normal  School  Receipts  and  State 
Appropriation . 

The  total  amount  of  money  appropriated  to  the  Normal  Schools 
of  Pennsylvania  for  the  two-year  period  1921-23  was  $5,112,622.25. 
While  this  amount  includes  all  the  money  that  the  Normal  Schools 
were  to  receive  during  the  two-year  period,  it  should  be  pointed 
out  that  it  also  includes  $212,306.25  reappropriated  from  a  balance 
from  previous  appropriations  to  be  used  largely  to  meet  deficits. 
The  difference  of  $4,900,000  was  the  total  amount  appropriated 


126 

to  Normal  Schools  by  the  last  Legislature.     This  amount  as  is 
shown  in  Table  45  (page  127)  was  apportioned  as  follows: 

Instructional,  Operating  and  Maintenance .  $2,993,000.00 
Liquidation  of  Normal  School  mortgages 

and  indebtedness 825,000.00 

Alterations  and  repairs 500,000.00 

Maintenance — a   deficiency   appropriation 

for  previous  years 582,316.00 

Reappropriation  to  be  apportioned  among 

the  Normal  Schools  upon  the  basis  of  the 

number  of  students 212,306.25 

Total $5,112,622.25 

The  allotment  of  these  various  amounts  to  the  respective  Nor- 
mal Schools  is  indicated  in  Tables  45  and  46  (pages  127  and  128). 
According  to  the  record  of  the  Auditor-General  as  of  August  1, 
1922,  practically  all  of  the  student-tuition  reappropriated  balance 
was  distributed  to  the  Normal  Schools.  Only  $90,900  out  of  the 
$825,000  for  the  liquidation  of  Normal  School  mortgages  and 
indebtedness  had  been  expended  at  that  time.  In  the  case  of  the 
maintenance  fund  and  the  alteration  and  repair  fund  approxi- 
mately one-half  of  the  amounts  appropriated  were  distributed  for 
the  first  year  of  the  appropriation  period.  The  deficiency  appro- 
priation was  distributed  among  the  State  Normal  Schools  in 
amounts  as  found  in  Colum.n  4  of  Table  45  and  are  identical  with 
the  amounts  as  stipulated  in  the  law.  In  Column  6  the  reappro- 
priated balance  of  the  previous  appropriations  is  distributed  to  the 
respective  Normal  Schools  in  amounts  as  determined  by  the  State 
Department  of  Public  Instruction  on  the  basis  of  the  num.ber  of 
students  enrolled  in  each  of  the  Normal  Schools  as  stipulated  in 
the  law.  In  Column  5  the  alteration  and  repair  appropriation  is 
shown  as  distributed  by  the  State  Department  of  Public  Instruc- 
tion on  the  basis  of  the  requests  and  established  needs  of  each  of 
the  State  Normal  Schools.  It  will  be  noted  that  $31,400  of  this 
amount,  according  to  the  record  submitted  from  Harrisburg,  still 
remains  as  a  balance  to  be  redistributed  among  the  schools 
during  the  balance  of  the  two-year  period. 


127 


(M 

Oi 
r-l 

« 

o 

H 

z 

H 

a 
Q 

cc 
« 

o 

I 

o 

Q 
P 

< 

H 
K 
H 

O 
H 

O 

z 

« 
O 

u 

<J 

z 
o 

;^ 
5 

Oh 

O 

« 

Oh 
Ph 

< 


^  00  L.  m 

g  caxi  cJS 
"5  c5g 


c  ca  Sm 

o  a  e 


tc  o'i 


N 


.S  c  a;  c«, 
3  «  C  cS 


■"  «  Q.25 

<<.2  ca  t. 


H 

3 

<; 

o 

H 

o 

r/3 

a 

li. 

O 

o 

w 

J 
< 

z 

OS 

o 
z 

^ 

r-i05O0000U5t~O^0tDr-<OTt- 
»-Hirat'C<lCOWt-OOOOt'-^'^C<l 


CC)0000Oa00STj»T3<t-CD«O'«*C0 


.-I  ,-1         Nr 


NrH  ,-<>-(«) 


ooooooooooooo 
ooooooooooooo 

00000000U50000 


OC^WW50500t>OOOiOO 


N00t>O05N00l>Ot-00(M(M 


ooooooooooooo 
ooooooooooooo 
oooioooooooooo 


olfliot-mNioiooooooN 

M0000005C<I000000305NIM 


■^tDNO'-li-ICSK)C-Q0C0U5Cq 


>-lM«'«1'lO«Ot-000>Oi-lNC<3 


CO 


H 

S       o 

s     < 

O  Oh 

^     § 

a)  Bh 

.2        K 

a         O 

as  f^ 

c         O 

i   2 

I     8 
I    ^ 

^       o 
=^      2 

o  « 

TO  Dh 

H 
H 

< 
o 


<: 
z 
< 
z 


o 

Reappropriation 

on  basis  of 

number  of  students 

in 

«>■ 

o 
CO 

i«o> 

■2"2 

c  ^"^ 

«  EiJ 
3  o.S 

•^-§ 

o 
o 
o 

U5 
N 

oo 

*0^ 

O    !>,  O 

2  C  ea 
etc  o 

to 

TO 

ou 

69- 

C  0)  o 

«-sE 

^    CQ    |_ 

1^1 

O 

o 
o 

o 
o 

lO 

(D  to  o 

a  c  o 

o  (Pja 

|E2 
i3     Z 

C  C 

o 
o 
o 

m" 

<j> 

a 

3  a 
o  a 
E  ■« 
<1 

128 

Approximately  one-half  of  the  instructional,  operating  and 
maintenance  fund  for  the  school  year  1921-22  was  distributed  to 
the  respective  schools  in  amounts  as  indicated  in  Table  45,  Column 
1  (page  127).  In  some  of  the  schools  these  amounts  were  not 
entirely  requisitioned  as  shown  in  Column  3.  In  fact  the  greater 
portion  of  the  appropriation  which  remains  unexpended  to  be 
used  during  the  second  year  of  the  appropriation  period  plus  the 
balance  in  the  case  of  individual  schools  remaining  from  the  first 
year's  allotment,  will  give  the  schools  additional  funds  with  which 
to  take  care  of  the  larger  enrollments  and  consequent  increased 
expenses  for  the  school  year  1922-23.  The  liquidation,  deficiency 
and  student-tuition  funds  will  not  be  considered  any  further  since 
the  need  for  these  and  their  distributions  are  clearly  established. 

TABLE  46. 

Total   State   Appropriations   and   Appropriations  for 

Instructional,  Operating  and  Maintenance  Expense 

PER  Student  Enrolled  on  the  Basis  of 

Principals'  Reports  to  the  State 

Department  of  Public 

Instruction. 

(Figures  in  parentheses  indicate  rank.) 


NORMAL  schools 
No. 

Rank 
in 
size 

Total 
state 
appropria- 
tions 

Total 

state 

appropriation 

per 

student 

enrolled 

Appropriation 
for  instruc- 
tional, 
operating  and 
maintenance 
expense 

Appropriation 

maintenance 

per 

student 

enrolled 

1  Bloomsburg 

4 

6 

12 

10 

11 

1 

9 

13 

7 

8 

3 

5 

2 

$134,134 
103,130 

87,168 
132,541 
132,640 
125,041 

93,168 

86,877 
103,381 

76,004 
106,200 
131,945 
137.123 

$209  (6) 
193  (9) 
260  (4) 
333  (3) 
359  (2) 
134  (13) 
202  (7) 
387  (1) 
195  (8) 
142  (12) 
155  (11) 
244  (5) 
162  (10) 

$120,000 
82,576 
65,166 

107,500 
95,151 

125,041 
85,000 
77,275 

101,281 
75,004 
89,856 

107,180 

124,799 

$187  (7) 
154  (9) 
193  (5) 
270  (2) 
257  (3) 
134  (12) 
184(8) 
344  (1) 
191  (6) 
142  (11) 
131  (13) 
198  (4) 
148  (10) 

2  California 

3  Clarion 

4  East  Stroudsburg 

5  Edinboro 

6  Indiana 

7  Kutztown 

8  Lock  Haven 

9  Mansfield 

10  Millersville 

11  Shippansburg 

12  Slippery  Rock 

13  Westchester 

Total 

1,448,357 
111,412 

165,823 

137,992 

171,304 
106,374 
112,026 

1,055,786 
95,980 

Pa.  Average 

198 

286 

290 

228 
107 
103 

172 

NORMAL  school 

standards 

Eight  selected  schools 

Thirty  unselected  schools  with 
two-year  courses 

Eight  unselected  schools  with 
more  than  two-year  courses. 

Minnesota  schools 

Massachusetts  schools 

I 


129 

Column  2  of  Table  46  (page  128)  contains  the  amounts  received 
by  the  Normal  Schools  for  instruction,  operation  and  maintenance, 
and  alterations  and  repairs.  In  Column  3  these  appropriations  are 
analyzed  on  the  basis  of  the  total  number  of  students  enrolled. 
The  average  amount  received  by  the  schools  is  $198,  with  School 
No.  8,  the  smallest  in  size,  receiving  $387  per  student;  and  School 
No.  6,  the  largest  in  enrollment  $134,  a  difference  of  $253  per  student. 
The  range  among  the  seven  schools  constituting  the  middle  50 
percent  extends  from  $260  to  $162  per  student  enrolled.  The  three 
schools  with  small  enrollment,  ranking  13,  11  and  10  in  size, 
received  from  the  state  $387,  $359  and  $333  per  student,  and  the 
three  schools  with  large  enrollment,  ranking  3,  8  and  1  in  size, 
received  respectively  $155,  $142  and  $134. 

In  comparing  these  amounts  with  the  standards  at  the  foot  of 
the  table  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Pennsylvania  State  Normal 
Schools  received  considerably  less  per  student  than  the  selected 
group  of  Normal  Schools  receiving  $286  per  student;  the  unse- 
lected  schools  with  more  than  two-year  courses,  receiving  $228 
per  student;  and  the  unselected  group  of  thirty  Normal  Schools 
with  two-year  courses  receiving  $290.  However,  the  average 
appropriation  received  by  the  Minnesota  State  Normal  Schools  is 
only  $107  per  student,  and  the  Massachusetts  Schools  $103. 
On  the  basis  of  these  standards,  with  the  exception  of  the  Minne- 
sota and  Massachusetts  averages,  it  is  evident  that  the  Pennsyl- 
vania State  Normal  Schools  received  from  the  state,  in  1921-22, 
considerably  less  than  they  should  have  received. 

Columns  4  and  5  contain  the  appropriations  for  instruction, 
operation  and  maintenance  exclusively  and  probably  give  a  fairer 
basis  for  comparing  the  appropriations  received  by  the  Normal 
Schools.  Apparently  two  of  the  schools  did  not  receive  any 
stated  amount  for  alterations  and  repairs  and  those  that  did 
received  them  in  quite  varied  amounts.  These  figures  represent 
the  exact  amounts  received  by  the  schools  as  reported  by  the 
principals  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  1,  1922,  and  consequently 
vary  slightly  with  those  recorded  in  Column  3  of  Table  45  as 
reported  by  the  Auditor-General's  department  which  contains 
some  hold-over  requisitions  and  also  additional  ones  recognized 
since  June  1,  1922.  In  Table  46,  Column  4,  the  amounts  received 
by  each  Normal  School  respectively  for  instruction,  operation  and 


130 


maintenance  is  also  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of 
students  enrolled,  showing  an  average  for  all  the  schools  of  $172. 
The  range  in  these  amounts  received  by  the  individual  schools 
extends  from  $131  in  School  No.  6,  the  first  in  size,  to  $344  in 
School  No.  8  with  the  smallest  enrollment.  The  seven  Normal 
Schools  representing  the  middle  50  percent,  range  from  $198  in 
School  No.  12  to  $148  in  School  No.  13. 

In  the  accompanying  Table  47  it  will  be  seen  that  School  No.  8 
ranking  13  in  size  ranks  1  in  the  state  appropriation  received  per 
student;  School  No.  3  ranking  12  in  size  ranks  5  in  amount  of 
state  appropriation  received  per  student,  and  School  No.  5  ranking 
11  in  size  ranks  3  in  amount  of  appropriation  received  per  student. 
In  comparing  the  larger  schools,  it  will  further  be  seen  that  School 
No.  6  ranking  1  in  size  ranks  12  in  appropriation  received ;  School 
No.  13  ranking  2  in  size  ranks  10  in  appropriation  received ;  and 
School  No.  11  ranking  3  in  total  enrollment  and  5  in  regular 
Normal  Course  student  enrollment  ranks  13  in  appropriation 
received.  In  fact  this  inverse  ratio  is  so  pronounced  that  it 
indicates  a  high  negative  correlation  in  these  ranks,  with  the 
exception  of  several  schools  about  the  midpoint.  This  practically 
established  beyond  question  that  the  larger  the  school  the  less 
state  money  per  student  the  school  receives,  and  conversely,  the 
smaller  the  school  the  greater  amount  of  money  per  student  the 
school  receives. 

TABLE  47. 

Normal  Schools  Compared  by  Ranks  in  Size  and  Amounts  of 
Appropriation  Received  per  Student. 


NORMAL  schools 

Total 
enrollment 
including 
one-fourth 
of  summer 
session  and 
one-fourth 
of  spring 
session 

Complete 

enrollment 

excluding 

summer  and 

spring 

term 

Appropria- 
tion 
maintenance 
per 
student 
total 
enrollment 

Appropria- 
tion 
maintenance 
per 
regular 
student 
enrollment 

1     Bloomsburg 

Rank 

4 

6 
12 
10 
11 

1 

9 
13 

7 

8 

3 

5 

2 

Rank 

3 

8 
12 
10 
11 

1 

7 
13 

5 

9 

4 

6 

2 

Rank 

7 

9 

5 

2 

3 
12 

8 

1 

6 
11 
13 

4 
10 

Rank 
6 

2     California 

g 

3     Clarion 

4 

4     East  Stroudsburg 

2 

5     Edinboro 

3 

6     Indiana 

13 

7     Kutztown 

7 

8     Lock  Haven 

■y 

9     Mansfield 

9 

10     Millersville 

11     Shippensburg 

11 

12     SHpperyRock 

5 

13     "West  Chester 

12 

131 

It  will  be  remembered  in  this  connection  that  in  the  analysis  of 
the  expenses  of  the  Normal  Schools  there  was  found  a  wide  varia- 
tion in  the  cost  of  the  different  departments  of  the  different 
schools,  apart  from  their  size,  and  that  the  higher  expenses  in  one 
item  or  another  occurred  principally  in  the  smaller  schools.  Con- 
sequently unless  these  differences  in  uniformity  of  salaries  and 
variations  in  other  departments  are  removed  by  more  rigid 
standards  on  the  part  of  some  governmental  agency,  it  is  evident 
that  the  only  alternative  on  the  part  of  the  State  Department  of 
Public  Instruction,  which  distributes  this  part  of  the  State  Normal 
School  appropriation,  is  to  consult  with  the  authorities  of  the 
individual  schools  and  to  arrange  for  an  appropriation  proportion- 
ate to  the  amount  claimed  in  order  to  avoid  a  deficit. 

A  more  equitable  distribution  of  the  state  appropriation  could 
probably  be  made  if  more  consideration  were  given  to  (1)  relative 
numbers  of  students  enrolled,  (2)  the  individual  school  needs, 
(3)  certain  measurable  efficiency  standards,  and  (4)  services  to  the 
state  through  extension  courses  and  summer  session  activities. 

Analysis  of  Normal  School  Receipts. 

In  Tables  48  and  48A  (pages  132  and  133)  the  Normal  School 
receipts  from  all  sources  are  analyzed  and  show  that  an  average  of 
64  percent  of  all  receipts  are  supplied  by  state  appropriation. 

This  is  very  low  when  compared  with  the  percentage  of  91.6  for 
the  selected  Normal  Schools  of  the  country,  85.5  for  the  thirty 
unselected  Normal  Schools  with  two-year  courses,  91.2  for  the 
unselected  Normal  Schools  with  more  than  two-year  courses,  91.4 
for  the  Massachusetts  schools,  and  87.2  for  the  Minnesota  Normal 
Schools.  The  range  in  state  appropriation  in  proportion  to  total 
receipts  extends  from  80.7  in  School  No.  8  to  44.7  in  School  No. 
7 — a  striking  difference  of  36  percent.  Variations  sim.ilar  to  those 
prevalent  throughout  this  study  are  equally  prominent  in  the 
analysis  of  Normal  School  receipts. 

The  seven  schools  constituting  the  middle  50  percent  received 
73.8  percent  to  62.9  percent,  indicating  a  quartile  deviation  of 
5.5  percent.  Therefore,  the  extreme  variation  indicated  above 
exists  among  the  six  schools  constituting  the  first  and  third 
quartile;  viz.,  Schools  Nos.  8,  5  and  3,  ranking  13,  11  and  12  in 


132 


CO 

o 

09 

g 

o 

w     • 

si 

< 

fa 


5 

^ 

H 

P4 

U. 

» 

O 

H 

m 

W 

rn 

O 

no 

< 

Ui 

-<l< 

n 

55 

H 

H 

O 

h-4 

H 
f-) 

<J 

Z 

« 

H 

O 

Z 

o 

o 

n 

« 

& 

Qu, 

Ph 

o 

H 
03 


paMOjJoq 


Bjdiaaaj 


005 
Orl 
lOtD 

© 
O 
O 

m 

■^NC0O5tOlO00'»l"t-<OlOtD00 


to  C4  N  rH  lO  r)<  00        lOlOWrHt- 


833)UBJSn3 

pUB 

KJS3;U03 


638Jn03 

ajtuoai 

aioj} 

paAiaoay 


(■U08S3| 

a^BAUd 
UEq?  Jaqio) 


uopanj^sui 

'  a^BAud 

ioj 

_nopmx 


saaj 
tnjax 


)ano33s 
Suisnoq 

jajsuBJX 


snopeudojdds 


IWJOJ. 


aZTB  UI 


C^<OiOMOOiO>nN05NC-mu5 


05COC^t*0000-^ON03lOaiU3 

oot-oiooNrooNOKCeowH 


«>iOMT)iTj<T)i«mcoooooeot- 

OSMtDOOOOlOCONO-^tDt-OO 
r-llO«)Oi-('XIO>e010.-Hr-CON 


MOOrfr-l        r-IO        M  •>f  t- 0>  N 


MCOt-lOOOOmootOOJOOiO 

o>^M.-ieo-Hici.-icoNi-<05>-i 

ONr-l       lONOOt-iONiOOlN 
mtOr-(  OOrH        t-r-Ci-CM 


tOTflOlOOt-i-lift-POOOiO 


mi-io050>o>i-iiootao<-"oo 


NNt-«Dt£M0O0>a>O«i-c 
O00«l«>0CNON>-l00NO 


-<       1-c  >-(  o>  N  .-1  tH -fli       MM 


^ooOi-ioi-ioot-i-'ti'omco 


■^rat-NNlOMtOCOlOtOr-it- 

coooococcNa>ooot-o«co 


taoorotDa>i-itr>ot-tco5iOi-i 
NNtoojNt-Ojooc-'^roooo 
■>to>ootom-«'t-it>t-'»)'««>oo 


lOm^iooONoot-Tjiiot-Nio 

0>«0>-iOJtDt~OOiO'^'*000 
■-l.-Cr-lr-l.-INNrH,-<i-l,-<CJ»-C 


^teNO<-<rHoect-oo«iON 


•Heqw^usut-ooooi-iNco 


133 


C^5 


w 

>H 

H 

y—\ 

X 

(V 

H 

N 

tf 

QU 

O 

rt 

Uh 

r/5 

,i«i 

W 

c 

C5 

as 

<JJ 

M 

H 

ni 

55 

-tj 

U 

cS 

o 

o 

Ph 

TJ 

M 

f1 

Ph 

Z    01 


z 

-u 

o 

c 

HH 

0) 

H 

^ 

<11 

CJ 

O. 

tf 

Oi 

C 

o 

tf 

w 

Ph 

0) 

cu 

t-l 

< 

3 

a 

E 

H 

>_• 

<! 

H 

CO 

P5 


paMOjjoq 


Xjpans  J9q;o 


633:)neJBnJ 
puB 

6)63)  a03 


83Sjn09 
lUOJJ 

paAiaoa^j 


(enoEss] 

a^BAUd 

UBq)  Jaqio) 

uopmx 


nOI)3TU)6UI 

3)BAtjd 

JOJ 

uopmx 


eaaj 
uijax 


^anoaoB 

Suisnoq 

xnoj} 

jajsuBJx 


■«(<  Tjc  1-1  t- 


odo 


C]  lO  r-ne  Tf  CO  TO  00  t- O  00  «1  05   t-l 
CC  •H  eg  O  CO  U5  M  O  « -^Ji  r-l  lO  «   lO 


;eia0>cou3c4 
oooooo 


rlOO 


eooo 


lO«)i-l^       CO 

oooo     o 


;d  CO  i-H  «5 1-1  CO  a>  CO  CO  00  oj  u5  M     oj 

1-1  »H  Tt  O  O  1*  ■<*  ©  N  N  if»f  iH       <* 


toooo 

MCOiH 


CO  O  Oi  t- 0>  00  O  U5  1-1       t- 

O  CO  O  O  ■>1i  ©  1-c  1-1  o       1-1 


©  © -"f  0> -"Ji  CJ  ■«)i  f-l  ©  CO  pj  o>  c-       «o 
00  t- OS  ■^  >0  C- lO  lO  t- »H  Tf  lO  o>       t- 


©«ou3<-ir-it-,Heoeoeoo>oo 

00eJ00r-l-<*ONt-00U3OO 
iHCOi-lrH        N        >-<i-l 


BUOI^BUdOJlddB 

a)«)S 


I«?ox 


azis  ui 


^ooeot-NNcoi-ioOf-iioo*-"* 

«o  o>  OS  t- 00  00 1- 1- 00  «i  iH  iH  00  © 

00  N  t- t- 00  lO  ■"t  O  ^  1-1  N  lO  eo  t 

<0  «D  t- tC  t- ■^  T)"  OO  <C  lO  t- to  t-  «o 


iOM-Oi 
lot- 11 


©©0©0©0©©©©00 
©©0©©0©0©©00© 


■<l>«5N©i-li-lOiC0t:-00e0lON 


>HMC0-<«i"5<Ot-00O>©i-lNeO 


ij 
o 

OW 

WQ 
o« 
cn<! 

o 
z 


"1* 


Si  <«  - 

no  Ji  4)  a,  *j 
■^  "  A  a  2. 

*J  ij  ^_>  *j  4J  0  I 


134 

size,  show  80.7,  78.8  and  77.9  percent  in  total  receipts  covered  by- 
state  appropriation  and  schools  Nos.  10,  6  and  7,  ranking  8,  1  and 
9  in  size,  show  51.6,  45.8  and  44.7  percent  respectively. 

It  is  evident  that  this  negative  relationship  prevails  throughout 
these  proportions  just  as  it  did  in  the  student  enrollment  in  the 
previous  discussion  on  appropriations.  It  is  most  significant  that 
two  of  the  Normal  Schools  should  receive  from  the  state  78  and  80 
percent  of  their  total  receipts  for  maintaining  their  schools,  while 
two  other  schools  should  receive  only  44  and  45  percent. 

Naturally  the  question  arises  where  do  the  Normal  Schools, 
receiving  the  small  percentages  of  state  appropriation  on  the  basis 
of  their  total  receipts,  make  up  the  differences?    This  is  answered 
in  Table  48A  (page  133),  where  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Normal 
Schools  show  receipts  from  local  sources  in  various  amounts  such 
as  transfer  from  housing  account,  term  fees,  tuition,  borrowed 
money,  etc.     It  will  be  seen  that  money  transferred  from  the 
housing  account  is  the  chief  source  of  revenue  apart  from  state 
appropriation.    School  No.  6,  receiving  the  second  smallest  amount 
of  state  appropriation,  both  per  student  enrolled  and  in  percent  of 
total  receipts,  transferred  32.9  percent  of  total  receipts  or  $87,661  I 
from  the  housing  account  to  meet  the  general  expenses  of  the  school .  ' 
School  No.  10  receiving  51.6  percent  from  state  appropriations  j 
transferred  $41,189  from  the  housing  account,  an  equivalent  of  i 
28.3  percent  of  the  total  receipts.     School  No.  7,  which  received  j 
44.7  percent  of  its  total  receipts  from  the  state,  transferred  only 
10.7  percent  from  the  housing  account;  however,  this  school  has 
14.9  percent  of  its  receipts  credited  to  tuition  and  private  lessons, 
and  23.3  percent  to  other  and  sundry  receipts. 

Usually  the  schools  receiving  the  larger  appropriation  of  state 
money  in  relation  to  total  receipts  transfer  a  relatively  smaller 
proportion  from  the  housing  accounts.  School  No.  1  transferred 
none,  School  No.  3  transferred  2.6  percent.  School  No.  11,  5.3 
percent,  etc.  A  study  of  the  entire  table  is  most  interesting  in 
that  it  shows  how  the  receipts  are  distributed  in  each  school  to 
make  up  the  total.  The  extreme  differences  in  percentages  of 
state  appropriations  in  Column  2  seem  to  be  the  key  in  explanation  j 
of  the  situation. 

Equalized  Distribution  of  State  Appropriation. — In  ana- 
lyzing the  percentage  of  state  appropriation  for  each  of  the  Normal 


135 

Schools  on  the  basis  of  the  percentage  of  expenses  as  found  in 
Table  38  (page  109),  it  will  be  found  that  the  state  appropriation 
in  most  of  the  schools  covers  all  expenses  for  instruction  and 
general  control  and  in  nine  of  the  schools  the  state  appropriation 
also  covers  a  fairly  good  proportion  of  the  expenses  for  auxiliary- 
agencies.  Consequently  it  would  seem  that  the  receipts  obtained 
from  other  local  sources  cover  the  expenses  for  maintenance, 
operation  of  school  plant  and  general  control  in  the  schools  for 
which  the  state  appropriation  is  not  large  enough  to  cover  these 
items.  Now  the  question  arises  whether  the  state  should  appro- 
priate more  money  for  the  Normal  Schools  to  cover  these  expen- 
ditures not  now  met  by  state  appropriation  or  whether  the  present 
amount  is  sufficient,  provided  the  extreme  variations  in  expenses 
of  all  kinds,  as  has  been  clearly  demonstrated,  can  be  adjusted  to 
insure  a  more  equitable  distribution. 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  Pennsylvania  does  not  appro- 
priate enough  money  for  its  Normal  Schools  compared  with  the 
standards  obtained  for  the  United  States  and  certain  individual 
states.  However,  on  the  basis  of  per  capita  population  Pennsyl- 
vania appropriates  23  cents  per  inhabitant.  In  comparison  Massa- 
chusetts appropriates  19  cents,  Minnesota  24  cents,  and  Wisconsin 
33  cents  per  inhabitant. 

The  student  enrollment  has  increased  this  year — 1922-23 — 26.7 
percent  over  the  year  1921-22,  for  which  data  are  presented  in  Table 
49.  These  increases,  according  to  information  submitted  by  the 
Normal  Schools  to  the  State  Department  of  Public  Instruction, 
vary  from  no  increase  in  one  school  all  the  way  to  80  percent  in 
another.  In  the  majority  of  schools  the  increases  in  attendance  are 
in  the  neighborhood  of  25  to  35  percent  over  the  previous  year. 
The  enrollment  in  the  summer  session  for  1922  of  9,159  students — 
an  average  of  705  per  school — indicates  a  remarkable  increase  of 
approximately  50  percent  over  the  previous  session.  The  Exten- 
sion Courses  this  year  show  a  total  enrollment  of  6,160  students,  an 
average  of  474  per  school,  which  is  an  increase  of  approximately 
85  percent  over  the  enrollment  of  1921-22. 

However,  the  gross  salary  increases  have  kept  pace  with  the  stu- 
dent increases  throughout  the  list.  According  to  the  requisition 
payrolls  submitted  to  the  Auditor-General  for  the  months  of 
September  and  October  the  Normal  School  salaries  for  the  year 


136 


PQ 


T-H         «^ 


s  " 


OJ     ^ 


s  .s 


^ 


•ZS-TS6I  •'3A0 


"ZS-IZei  JaAO 
at  3SB3J0ai  )a93jaj 


■eZ-SZ6T 
saiJBiEB   looqos 


■SZ-T26X 
eauBiBS   jooqas 


•[ooqDS 


■e3-2S6X  aoaapuod 
-sajjoa  pa^Bninea 


•eZ-2Z6X 
sasxnoo  uoisua^xg 


'SS6I  noissas  jatnmng 


COeO«T)'«)O>«DO5O500CO0000 
i-ICO-O-ICO^f-r-lvONMNi-" 


(CrH*-»O^00lOt-iasiO<D(DCC<O 


omTji«5;oCT>^eoc-t-^(X)'* 


omooooooot-oooo 


.     .     -o 

O     • 

•o 

lOO      ■ 

■    ■    -la 

lO     • 

■     ■       M 

O)     • 

•N 

^Oi-i^^^^rt  ^-^N 


0000U5'<tCOTr00U5'^COU30O00 


€S6T  eaiEnpBJQ 


•^dap  XjE 
-puooas  ui  ffjuapn^s 


^O  CO  ^^^^O  IN  ^^^^^-^-^ 
Mr-<T-l00<DC0r1i-'T)'lOC-O5r-< 

lO  io  lO  O  U5  O  "5  O  N  N  lO  O  ■* 
t-Nt-tOOO'^NO.-iOtr-lOCO 
NrH        ^  r-l  N  >-l  .I  N  M  t-i  r-l  T)l 


(cpadE  a;  S4aapn:)s 


•^uaprns  asjnoo 
yemiou     jBjnaaH 


•uotssae  jammns 
puB  Suiids  aurpnpxa 
iaamiiojTia    j^inSa^ 


•noissae 
jammne  puB  Siiuds 
aurpnpui  ^namiioj 
-na    jBjoi)    pa^sntpv 


to 

2  o 


,-^^  CO  ^^.— O  N  ^~,^.^^-v,^ 
C0i-i-H00T)iW-i'-"O«Ot-(3it-i 

OOUSiOOOiOONt-lOOO 

miac-coioo5  0ooo^t-t-c^m 

lONrHCOflON'-lTj'COCOCOOO 


^NO,-^^i--CO, 


CO00i-l^t-Mi-lr-l'*OHO«>r-c 

Ot*u5OOOOl0t-OU5t-0i 
<Ot-Nt-0-fl'«OOlOO>-«l'OlO 
«O'«'C0C0lO<J0C0NiOC0lOlO00 


COUJrH^t-^rtr-IOOOStC  Jj^N 

t^C5CO00tDOiU5'<1*«OU500OJt^ 
OO^OTfTftDi-f^COtCUSCDt^O 


3  ee 


o  d 

-  ^  u 

c  -le  o 


i-  M  p-  * 

.2^ 


■  t.  "  (1) 


.  u  _,  ?  rt'T^  >  c  >»J-  til 


jaqtanf.} 


tr-    00    0    t^  CJ 

■C-w   C.2  H^  Cii  n   °-m 

CO'^lOWt-OOOOi-iNCO 


Eh       < 


137 

1922-23  have  increased  28  percent  over  1921-22.  These  increases 
vary  from  13  percent  in  Schools  Nos.  7  and  8  to  55  percent  in 
School  No.  9.  The  general  increase  is  in  the  neighborhood  of  25 
to  35  percent. 

During  the  past  two  years  the  Pennsylvania  Normal  Schools 
received  from  the  state  a  total  appropriation  of  $3,493,000, 
$2,993,000  for  instruction,  operation  and  maintenance  and 
$500,000  for  alterations  and  repairs.  In  view  of  the  facts  pre- 
sented herein  it  is  doubtful  whether  most  of  the  schools  can 
possibly  operate  on  less  than  their  proportionate  share  of  an 
equal  amount  for  the  next  two-year  period.  It  would  seem,  in 
view  of  the  increased  enrollment  in  practically  all  departments  of 
the  normal  schools,  especially  the  tremendous  increases  in  the 
enrollment  of  the  summer  sessions  and  extension  courses  and  the 
possible  additional  increases  in  1923-24,  the  second  year  of  the 
biennium,  that  more  money  should  be  appropriated  by  the  state 
for  instructional,  operating  and  maintenance  expenses  for  the 
next  two  years.  The  salary  increases  this  year  over  last,  as 
already  pointed  out,  would  also  confirm  this  conclusion. 

In  regard  to  the  alterations  and  repairs  appropriation  it  is 
difficult  to  determine  just  how  much  money  should  be  allotted  to 
the  schools  for  this  purpose,  since  the  former  estimate  was  made 
as  the  result  of  a  careful  survey  by  the  Building  Department  of  the 
State  Department  of  Public  Instruction.  Undoubtedly  a  similar 
survey  should  again  be  made  to  determine  the  amount  of  appro- 
priation, since  the  amount  appropriated  during  the  past  two  years 
makes  it  doubtful  as  to  what  proportion  of  the  $500,000  should  be 
continued  for  the  next  two  years. 

A  careful  survey  of  the  Normal  Schools  should  be  made  as  to 
their  maintenance,  instructional  and  operating  needs,  as  in  the  case 
of  alterations  and  repairs  on  the  basis  of  the  services  rendered 
the  state  by  each  of  the  Normal  Schools  through  the  training  of 
public  school  teachers.  The  increases  in  extension  courses  and 
summer  session  cited  above  are  also  a  disturbing  factor  in  deter- 
mining the  relative  amount  of  money  they  should  receive.  These 
facts  tend  to  confirm  the  point  of  view  maintained  throughout  this 
study,  that  definite  amounts  of  the  total  appropriation  be  stipulated 
to  maintain  these  departments.  According  to  the  facts  disclosed  in 
this  study  it  is  evident  that  some  of  the  schools  are  receiving  too 


138 

much  money  and  others  certainly  not  enough  on  a  per  student 
basis  or  on  the  basis  of  the  proportion  of  appropriations  to  total 
receipts  or  expenses.  It  is  difficult  to  justify  the  amount  of  money 
that  some  of  the  schools  received,  when  others  are  apparently 
rendering  a  much  greater  service  to  the  state,  and  are  obliged  to 
find  sources  of  income  in  other  ways  to  meet  the  expenses  of 
running  their  schools. 

Commission. — In  this  discussion  it  is  evident  that  the  subject 
of  state  appropriations  for  Normal  Schools  should  receive  serious 
consideration  either  by  the  State  Council  of  Education  or  a  Normal 
School  Commission  on  the  basis  of  the  size,  need,  efficiency,  and 
relative  services  to  the  state.  It  would  seem  that  in  order  to 
account  for  these  tremendous  variations  a  more  exhaustive  study 
should  be  made  than  is  here  possible.  It  should  be  remembered 
that  it  was  not  the  assignment  to  investigate  the  causes  of  the 
facts  and  conditions  as  revealed,  but  rather  to  point  out  the  neces- 
sity for  thorough  study  of  the  Normal  Schools  as  a  state  system 
in  order  to  justify  a  reasonable  and  equitable  distribution  of  state 
money. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Higher  Educational  Institutions. 

In  order  to  promote  higher  education  in  Pennsylvania  in  con- 
formity with  the  directions  contained  in  the  Constitutions  of 
1779  and  1791  the  Legislature  of  the  Commonwealth  has  issued 
charters  to  certain  private  institutions.  Three  of  these  have  for 
many  years  had  such  relations  with  the  Commonwealth  with 
reference  to  control  or  support,  or  both,  as  to  make  them  to  a 
greater  or  less  degree  regarded  by  the  citizens  of  the  state  as 
public  or  semi-public  schools.  These  institutions  are  the  Univer- 
sity of  Pennsylvania,  whose  present  charter  was  granted  in  1791, 
the  University  of  Western  Pennsylvania  (now  called  the  University 
of  Pittsburgh,  which  title  has  been  legalized  by  judicial  action), 
chartered  in  1819,  and  Pennsylvania  State  College,  chartered  in 
1855,  designated  as  a  Land  Grant  College  in  1863,  and  known  as 
the  Pennsylvania  State  College  since  1874. 

The  Governor  of  the  Commonwealth  is  president  of  the  board 
at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  and  is  an  ex-officio  member  of 
the  Board  of  Trustees  of  each  of  the  other  two  institutions.  Penn- 
sylvania State  College  also  has  upon  its  board  two  other  officers  of 
the  Commonwealth,  the  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  and 
the  Secretary  of  Agriculture.  The  Mayor  of  Pittsburgh  is  an 
ex-ofiicio  member  of  the  board  of  the  University  of  Pittsburgh. 
The  members  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  each  of  the  two  univer- 
sities other  than  the  ex-ofRcio  members,  which  include  in  each 
case  the  administrative  head  of  the  institution  known  as  the 
Provost,  Chancellor  or  President,  serve  for  life  and  select  their 
own  successors.  It  is  the  practice  at  the  University  of  Pennsyl- 
vania at  the  present  time  to  permit  the  alumni  of  the  institution 
to  nominate  for  a  portion  of  the  vacancies.  At  Pennsylvania  State 
College  the  trustees  are  appointed  for  a  term  of  three  years  and 
new  members  are  chosen  as  follows:  Six  members  appointed  by 
the  Governor  and  confirmed  by  the  Senate;  twelve  members 
elected  by  delegates  from  certain  societies  and  associations,  i.  e., 
three  delegates  from  each  county  in  the  Commonwealth  represent- 

139 


140 

ing  organized  agricultural  interests  of  the  county,  and  three 
delegates  from  each  county  in  the  Commonwealth  representing 
the  organized  engineering,  mining,  manufacturing  and  mechanical 
interests  of  the  county;  nine  members  chosen  of  and  from  the 
alumni  by  the  members  of  the  alumni.  One- third  of  all  the  above 
are  appointed  and  elected  respectively  each  year. 

The  conditions  which  in  the  public  mind  set  apart  public 
institutions  from  private  institutions  are  probably  the  following: 
(1)  Legal  title  to  property  vested  in  the  Commonwealth  or  a  sub- 
division thereof,  (2)  All  trustees  thereof  elected  by  the  citizens 
or  by  their  representatives  in  a  legislative  body  or  appointed  by 
the  Governor  or  some  other  state  or  local  officer  or  board.  (3) 
Financial  support  (except  minor  fees  and  income  of  occasional 
private  gifts  or  endowments)  entirely  from  the  state. 

The  above  conditions  are  not  fully  met  by  the  present  status  of 
the  University  of  Pennsylvania  or  the  University  of  Pittsburgh  or 
Pennsylvania  State  College. 

The  title  to  the  property  of  each  of  these  institutions  is  vested  in 
their  respective  corporations.  However,  there  are  many  charitable 
institutions  in  Pennsylvania  established,  maintained  and  sup- 
ported out  of  the  funds  of  the  Commonwealth  and  regarded  as 
purely  state  institutions,  which  have  the  legal  title  of  all  their 
property  vested  in  a  corporation  formed  under  the  laws  of  Penn- 
sylvania. The  major  portion  of  the  plants  of  the  two  universities 
has  been  secured  from  private  funds,  while  the  property  of 
Pennsylvania  State  College,  except  for  two  or  three  private  gifts 
of  buildings,  has  been  provided  for  by  funds  appropriated  from 
the  Commonwealth.  Inasmuch  as  the  state  officials  have  par- 
ticipated but  seldom  in  the  deliberations  of  the  Boards  of  the  two 
universities  and  since  state  officials  upon  the  Pennsylvania  State 
College  board  together  with  the  one-third  which  may  be  considered 
as  representatives  of  the  state  do  not  altogether  make  up  a 
majority  of  the  Board,  it  follows  that  the  management  of  the 
three  schools  is  in  private  hands.  While  they  have  full  control  of 
the  property  they  cannot,  however,  dispose  of  it  in  the  same  way 
as  a  business  corporation  can  do  with  its  property.  If  any  of  these 
institutions  would  cease  to  operate,  its  property  would  eventually 
escheat  to  the  state. 

Since  it  seems  to  have  been  the  policy  of  the  Commonwealth 


141 

to  have  private  corporations  perform  its  public  educational  service 
and  administer  certain  of  its  welfare  agencies,  it  would  have  been 
consistent  for  the  State  Legislature  to  have  constantly  granted 
them  public  funds  for  their  support  from  the  time  of  their  estab- 
lishment and  to  have  taken  a  vital  part  in  the  determination  of  their 
financial  and  educational  policies.  But  this  was  not  the  plan  that 
was  pursued.  The  state  gave  practically  no  support  to  the  two 
universities  previous  to  1907,  since  which  time  appropriations 
have  been  made  regularly,  nor  has  it  ever  sought  to  exercise  any 
part  in  the  control  of  them  beyond  that  of  designating  the  definite 
purpose  for  which  certain  minor  parts  of  the  general  appropriations 
were  to  be  spent.  The  same  holds  true  in  regard  to  Pennsylvania 
State  College  in  so  far  as  regular  biennial  appropriations  have 
been  made  since  1887.  The  trustees  have  not,  however,  been 
permitted  to  exercise  the  same  freedom  of  control  as  the  boards 
of  the  other  two  institutions.  Both  the  national  funds  granted 
under  the  terms  of  the  Morrill  Act  for  the  support  of  agricultural 
and  mechanical  colleges  and  those  funds  contributed  by  the  state 
in  order  to  make  the  Morrill  funds  available  must  be  spent  in 
accordance  with  the  provision  of  that  Act.  The  same  applies  to 
the  revenue  derived  from  other  federal  appropriations.  Further- 
more, the  work  done  is  subject  to  inspection  by  federal  officers 
who  have  the  power  to  withhold  the  funds  if  they  see  fit.  The 
control  of  state  officers  or  state  boards  over  the  institution  has 
not  been  exercised  to  any  appreciable  degree. 

Each  institution  is  required  by  its  charter  to  submit  quarterly 
to  the  State  Auditor  a  detailed  statement  of  its  expenditures  from 
the  appropriations. 

Another  important  aspect  from  which  the  institutions  should 
be  viewed  in  considering  the  extent  to  which  they  function  as 
public  and  private  institutions  is  the  matter  of  fees  charged 
students.  It  would  have  been  possible  for  the  state  to  have  made 
its  grants  of  money  and  to  have  required  from  these  institutions 
that  instruction  be  given  to  all  students  free  of  charge.  This  has 
been  done  only  in  the  case  of  Pennsylvania  State  College  and 
then  because  of  the  provisions  of  the  Morrill  Act  and  presumably 
not  because  of  the  acts  of  the  Legislature.  But  to  have  made  this 
requirement  from  these  institutions  would  have  necessitated  the 
regular  granting  of  appropriations  in  considerably  larger  amounts. 


142 

The  people  of  the  state  preferred  not  to  follow  this  course,  but 
rather  to  leave  the  support  of  higher  education  to  those  who  were 
charitably  inclined  on  the  one  hand  and  to  those  who  received 
its  benefits  on  the  other  hand.  In  consequence  tuition  fees  have 
always  been  charged  at  both  universities.  Pennsylvania  State 
College  has,  in  recent  years  at  least,  charged  student  fees  for  pur- 
poses other  than  tuition.  This  is  a  common  practice  in  all  institu- 
tions in  the  United  States  largely  supported  by  public  funds,  and 
the  amounts  of  these  fees  have  increased  considerably  in  the  last 
few  years  due  to  the  unanticipated  rising  costs  and  the  necessity 
that  these  costs  be  met  without  adequate  appropriations. 

A  list  of  appropriations  that  have  been  made  to  the  University 
of  Pennsylvania  since  the  time  of  its  establishment  is  given  in 
Table  50.  It  may  be  considered  as  t3rpical  of  both  of 
the  universities  although  the  appropriations  to  the  University  of 
Pittsburgh  were  not  made  so  often  as  to  the  University  of  Penn- 
sylvania, as  for  example,  an  appropriation  to  Lehigh  University 
of  $200,000  in  1895  to  help  it  out  in  a  time  of  financial  crisis. 

TABLE  50. 

State  Appropriations  Received  by  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania  From  1749-1923. 

1749 

1779 £3,500* 

1807 $3,000t 

1838 lO.OOOi 

1872 

1873 

1889 12,500 

1897-99 150,000 

1899-01 

1901-03 

1903-05 100,000 

1905-07 100,000 

1907-09 100,000 

1909-11 280,000 

1911-13 695,000 

1913-15 820,000 

1915-17 750,000 

1917-19 926,500 

1919-21 1,134,000 

1921-23 1,370,000 


•An  amount  not  exceeding  £1,500  per  annum  and  a  loan  of  £2,000. 

! $3,000  appropriated  to  the  Trustees  "out  of  monies  they  owe  the  state." 
$1,000  a  year  for  ten  years,  the  appropriation  failing  after  $4,500  has  been  paid. 


Besides  the  three  institutions  mentioned  above  there  have  been 
other  colleges  and  universities  which  have,  now  and  then,  received 
appropriations  from  the  Legislature,  but  not  to  the  same  extent  as 
these  two  semi-public  institutions.    The  colleges  that  have  been 


143 

favored  in  recent  years  are  Duquesne  University  at  Pittsburgh, 
Temple  University  at  Philadelphia,  and  Washington  and  Jefferson 
College  at  Washington,  Pennsylvania.  The  amounts  that  have 
been  appropriated  to  all  of  these  institutions  since  1909  are  given 
in  Table  51. 

TABLE  51. 
Appropriations  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  to 
Higher  Education.* 


Institutions 

1909 

1911 

1913 

1915 

1917 

1919 

1921 

State  College... 
University  of 
Pennsylvania.. . 
University  of 
Pittsburgh 

$482,510 
230,000 
325,000 

$805,000 
795,000 
275,000 

$1,220,000 
820,000 
400,000 

$900,000 
750,000 
600,000 

$1,275,000 

800,000 

675,000 
15,000 

170,000 

$1,786,462 

1,000,000 

750,000 
50,000 

200,000 

$2,632,000 

1,105,000 

900,000 
50,000 

Temple 

125,000 

100,000 

125,000 

270,000 

Washington 

15,000 

Total 

1,037,510 

2,000,000 

2,540,000 

2,375,000 

2,935,000 

3,786,462 

4,972,000 

•Appropriation  Acts.  1909;  1911;  1913;  1915;  1917;  1919;  1921. 


Considerations  Involved  in  the  Determination  of  a 
State  Policy  Relative  to  Higher  Education. 

To  what  extent  the  state  of  Pennsylvania  should  go  in  modifying 
its  century-old  policy  in  regard  to  education  in  the  light  of  recent 
developments  is  a  matter  for  mature  reflection.  Whether  a 
Commonwealth  should  build,  equip  and  conduct  institutions  of 
higher  learning  depends  in  the  final  analysis  upon  the  views  held 
by  its  people  as  to  the  objects  of  government.  Apparently  in 
Pennsylvania,  so  far  as  higher  education  is  concerned,  the  practice 
has  been  to  narrow  the  field  of  the  government's  activity  and  to 
leave  as  much  as  possible  in  private  hands.  It  has  not  proceeded 
on  the  theory  that  the  state  may  undertake  whatever  is  convenient 
and  thus  parallel  private  enterprise,  but  rather  on  the  principle 
that  the  state  should  act  only  when  the  objects  of  society  could 
not  be  accomplished  without  the  government's  participation. 

Accepting  this  point  of  view  as  to  the  proper  functions  of  a 
state  in  regard  to  higher  education  as  legitimate,  the  question 
remains  whether  the  state  has  in  the  application  of  its  theory  gone 
as  far  as  it  should  in  order  to  realize  the  true  objects  of  higher 
education  in  an  American  Commonwealth.     There  arc  two  sets 


144 

of  conditions,  the  existence  of  which  should  require  any  state 
that  has  followed  the  course  pursued  by^Pennsylvania,  to  extend 
its  support  and  control  of  higher  education  within  its  boundaries: 
(1)  If  private  efforts  do  not  provide  a  sufficient  number  of 
institutions  properly  manned  and  equipped  to  promote  its  social 
life  through  research  and  the  preparation  of  leaders  and  workers, 
the  state  should  undertake  to  meet  the  deficiencies;  (2)  If  private 
schools,  although  sufficient  in  number,  adequately  manned  and 
equipped  to  meet  society's  need,  should  not  make  it  possible  for 
every  capable  individual  to  have  equal  opportunity  with  every 
other  individual  of  receiving  a  higher  education. 

Totally  aside  from  what  has  been  referred  to  as  the  apparent 
theory  upon  which  Pennsylvania  has  proceeded,  it  can  be  rightfully 
maintained  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  state  to  establish,  maintain 
and  support  institutions  of  higher  learning.  There  are  benefits 
derived  from  such  institutions  which  private  institutions  could  not 
ordinarily  furnish,  such  as  free  tuition  and  a  more  direct  recogni- 
tion of  important  needs  of  the  various  groups  of  its  citizens.  These 
benefits  are  of  sufficient  importance  to  establish  it  as  a  principle  of 
action  that  all  states  should  provide  such  institutions  for  the 
benefit  of  their  inhabitants. 

No  state  can  long  maintain  a  happy  and  prosperous  civilization 
without  higher  educational  institutions,  among  which  there  must 
be  one  or  more  which  is  specially  devoted  to  research  as  well  as  to 
the  preparation  of  students  in  each  of  the  various  divisions  of 
learning  that  are  of  greater  value  to  the  state. 

The  Situation  with  Regard  to  Higher  Education 
in  Pennsylvania. 

As  was  indicated  above,  there  are  two  different  points  of  view 
from  which  the  higher  educational  institutions  in  Pennsylvania 
and  the  state's  relation  to  them  should  be  viewed :  first,  the  num- 
ber of  higher  educational  institutions,  both  semi-public  and 
private,  and  the  adequacy  of  their  equipment  and  personnel  to 
meet  the  needs  of  the  various  phases  of  the  social  life;  second,  the 
opportunity  given  the  youth  of  the  state  through  the  existing 
institutions  to  obtain  that  education  which  they  should  have  with 
equal  opportunity  to  all. 


145 

The  universities  and  colleges  of  the  state,  together  with  the 
number  of  regular  students  attending  each  (excluding  summer 
session  and  Extension  students)  in  the  year  1919-20,  are  given  in 
Table  51-A.  These  institutions  are  rendering  a  service  to 
the  state  which  is  of  the  greatest  value.  Practically  all  of  them 
are  efficient  and  a  number  are  of  the  highest  grade.  Among  them 
all  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  has  for  more  than  a  century 
stood  out  as  the  most  prominent;  its  contribution  has  in  fact  been 
national,  and  in  certain  fields,  even  world-wide  in  scope. 


TABLE  51  A. 

Students  in  Pennsylvania  Universities  and  Colleges  1919-1920.* 

(Regular  students  only,  excluding  Summer  Session  and 

Extension  students.) 


LOCATION 


universities  and  colleges 


STUDENTS 

Men 

Women 

0 

122 

389 

0 

159 

124 

536 

0 

0 

132 

170 

263 

1,136 

0 

73 

0 

0 

464 

431 

133 

0 

337 

63 

0 

123 

99 

725 

0 

453 

40 

38 

0 

0 

286 

110 

125 

248 

216 

207 

5 

182 

262 

318 

0 

546 

307 

180 

0 

336 

200 

14 

3 

0 

129 

109 

72 

112 

127 

197 

221 

30 

2 

522 

0 

300 

0 

84 

0 

280 

0 

453 

0 

3,807 

2,683 

5,693 

1.169 

0 

103 

2,118 

627 

0 

191 

3,483 

1,496 

42 

6 

212 

163 

2,991 

303 

350 

258 

530 

1 

368 

0 

Allentown 

Allentown 

Annville 

Beatty 

Beaver 

Beaver  Falls 

Bethlehem 

Bethlehem 

Bryn  Mawr 

Carlisle 

Chambersburg .  .  . . 

Chester 

CoUegeville 

Easton 

Gettysburg 

Gettysburg 

Greensburg 

Greenville 

Grove  City 

Haverf  ord 

Huntingdon 

Lancaster 

Lewisburg 

Lincoln  University 

Meadville 

Meadville 

Mechanicsburg. .  .  . 

Myerstown 

New  Wilmington.  . 

Philadelphia 

Philadelphia 

Philadelphia 

Philadelphia 

Philadelphia 

Philadelphia 

Philadelphia 

Philadelphia 

Philadelphia 

Philadelphia 

Pittsburgh 

Pittsburgh 

Pittsburgh 

Pittsburgh 

Selinsgrove 

State  College 

Swarthmore 

Villanova 

Washington 


Cedar  Crest  College 

Muhlenberg  College < . 

Lebanon  Valley  College 

St.  Vincent  College 

Beaver  College 

Geneva  College 

Lehigh  University 

Moravian  College  and  Theological  Seminary 

Bryn  Mawr  College 

Dickinson  College 

Wilson  College 

Crozer  Theological  Seminary 

Ursinus  College 

Lafayette  College 

Pennsylvania  College 

Theological  Seminary 

Seton  Hill  College  for  Women 

Thiel  College 

Grove  City  College 

Haverf  ord  College 

Juniata  College 

Franklin  and  Marshall  College 

Bucknell  University 

Lincoln  University 

Allegheny  College 

Meadville  Theological  School 

Irving  Female  College 

Albright  College 

Westminster  College 

Drexel  Institute 

Dropsie  College 

Jefferson  Medical  College 

LaSalle  College 

Lutheran  Theological  Seminary 

St.  Charles  Seminary 

St.  Joseph's  College 

Temple  University 

University  of  Pennsylvania 

Women's  Medical  College  of  Pennsylvania .  . 

Carnegie  Institute  of  Technology 

Pennsylvania  College  for  Women 

University  of  Pittsburgh 

Western  "Theological  Seminary 

Susquehanna  University 

Pennsylvania  State  College 

Swarthmore  College 

Villanova  College 

Washington  and  Jefferson  College 


•  Data  furnished  by  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Education. 


146 

It  has  been  impossible  in  the  brief  time  allowed  to  make  a  care- 
ful study  of  the  various  questions  involved  in  the  field  of  higher 
education.  They  are  believed  to  be  of  such  importance  that  it  is 
recommended  that  a  special  commission  be  appointed  by  some 
authoritative  body  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  careful  and  detailed 
analysis  of  the  situation  from  both  of  these  points  of  view.  There 
are,  however,  certain  significant  facts  which  lie  somewhat  closely 
upon  the  surface  and  which  have  an  important  bearing  upon  the 
present  problem  of  higher  education  in  the  state,  and  these  will  be 
presented  together  with  such  inferences  as  seem  to  be  warranted 
by  them. 

Practices  of  Other  States. 

Every  state  in  the  Union  has  its  higher  educational  institutions 
and  all  but  a  few  of  the  smaller  have  either  a  public  or  a  private 
imiversity.  Many  of  these  institutions  are  private  and  have  an 
enrollment  of  but  a  few  hundred  and  an  endowment  of  a  half 
million  dollars  or  less.  While  there  are  in  most  states  one  or  more 
strong,  well  equipped  and  well  manned  private  colleges,  yet  there 
are  but  a  few  states  in  which  there  are  strong  private  universities. 
These  latter  institutions  have,  however,  held  the  leadership  in  this 
field  throughout  our  entire  history;  some  of  them  are  nov/  so  well 
endowed  that  their  income  from  endowment  reaches  about  a 
million  dollars  a  year.  In  the  distribution  of  higher  educational 
institutions  Pennsylvania  belongs  to  a  small  group  of  northern 
Atlantic  states  in  that  it  has  a  large  number  of  private  institu- 
tions, both  large  and  small,  but  no  purely  state  institutions.  It 
is  most  like  New  Jersey,  New  York,  Massachusetts  and  Vermont, 
all  of  which  have  heretofore  granted  some  state  appropriations  to 
private  institutions  from  time  to  time  but  more  frequently  for  the 
Department  of  Agriculture  connected  with  a  private  institution 
such  as  Rutgers,  Cornell  and  the  University  of  Vermont.  Most 
of  the  other  states  of  the  Union  have  a  large  State  University  or  a 
State  University  and  a  College  of  Agriculture  and  Mechanic  Arts 
as  the  leading  institution  of  higher  education  in  the  state. 

The  reason  for  the  differences  in  these  two  groups  is  that  private 
institutions  in  the  eastern  states  were  sufficient  in  number  and 
strength  to  meet  the  demand  for  higher  education,  while  in  the 
western  and  southern  states  it  seemed  impossible  for  private 


147 

interests  to  perform  the  same  service,  and  so  perforce  of  circum- 
stances, each  of  the  western  states  in  the  earliest  years  of  their 
history  started  through  public  effort  that  which  private  effort 
seemingly  could  not  accomplish.  The  time  has  now  come,  how- 
ever in  these  eastern  states  in  which  private  effort  seems  no  longer 
to  satisfy.  The  state  of  Massachusetts  has  today  a  commission 
trying  to  answer  the  question  whether  a  public  State  University 
should  be  established  in  its  midst. 

Situation  in  Pennsylvania. 

In  Pennsylvania  the  situation  has  developed  somewhat  in  this 
way.  The  two  institutions  situated  in  the  eastern  and  western 
parts  of  the  state,  which  have  been  long  regarded  as  being,  in  a 
sense,  state  institutions,  felt  the  pressure  for  the  establishment 
of  additional  professional  schools  and  for  the  enlargement  of 
those  colleges  already  in  existence.  They  also  felt  the  need  for 
increased  equipment  because  of  the  development  of  higher  educa- 
tion in  both  the  old  subjects  and  the  new.  They  were  also  com- 
pelled to  provide  much  larger  teaching  staffs  in  order  to  take 
care  of  the  increased  enrollment.  All  of  these  factors,  combined 
with  the  fact  that  the  private  sources  of  support  were  not  able  to 
meet  the  increase  of  these  demands,  forced  these  institutions  to 
turn  back  to  the  state  for  needed  assistance  in  the  year  1907, 
since  which  time  they  have  regularly  received  appropriations  from 
the  Legislature.  It  is  believed  by  many  of  the  friends  of  both 
these  institutions  that  they  cannot  continue  to  render  their  full 
service  to  the  state  aspirant  institutions,  and  that  the  state  should 
incorporate  them  in  a  broad  scheme  of  public  higher  education. 

Pennsylvania  has  maintained  a  Land  Grant  College  or  a  College 
of  Agriculture  and  Mechanic  Arts  at  State  College,  not  connected 
with  any  other  institution,  which  at  the  same  time  offered 
courses  in  Liberal  Arts  as  has  been  the  case  at  Rutgers,  Cornell  and 
University  of  Vermont.  The  Pennsylvania  State  College  has 
experienced  the  same  demand  for  increasing  the  scope  of  its 
activities  and  for  making  more  extensive  and  more  adequate 
provision  in  faculty  and  equipment  for  the  courses  already  in 
existence.  This  institution  now  asks  that  the  scope  of  its  activities 
be  enlarged,  and  that  its  appropriation  be  considerably  increased. 


148 

In  the  determination  of  Pennsylvania's  policy  in  such  a  situa- 
tion the  following  facts  are  pertinent: 

(1)  Pennsylvania  Requirements. — The  experience  of 
other  states  indicates  that  Pennsylvania  should  have  in  addi- 
tion to  the  private  higher  institutions  three  institutions  of 
higher  learning  capable  of  producing  leaders  in  society  and  of 
contributing  through  research  to  the  continual  advancement 
of  the  various  fields  of  social  activity.  This  conclusion  may 
be  drawn  from  the  facts  shown  in  Table  52,  which  contains  the 
number  of  persons  and  the  number  of  high  school  graduates 
for  each  such  institution  in  the  various  states.  Most  of  the 
institutions  represented  in  this  table  involve  financial  invest- 
ments of  many  hundred  of  thousands  of  dollars,  student 
bodies  of  several  thousands  and  faculties  of  several  hundreds. 
There  is  a  question  whether  some  of  them  are  not  already  too 
large  for  the  most  successful  administration.  While  mere 
numbers  taken  in  this  way  are  not  reliable  measures  of  what 
should  be  the  size  of  educational  institutions,  nevertheless 
they  give  the  answer  based  upon  the  present  practice.  They 
show  that  three  public  institutions  of  higher  learning  are 
required  to  be  adequate  to  meet  the  social  needs  of  a  popula- 
tion as  large  as  Pennsylvania's. 

(2)  Location. — Another  important  consideration  is  that 
of  the  location  of  the  institutions.  Many  departments  of  a 
university  must  be  located  in  close  proximity  to  the  fields  of 
study  included  in  its  curriculum.  There  are,  undoubtedly, 
advantages  peculiar  to  each  of  the  three  locations  which 
should  be  utilized  where  each  of  the  three  state-supported 
schools  is  found,  and  there  is  undoubtedly  need  for  institu- 
tions suited  to  the  development  of  the  various  activities  found 
in  each  location.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  it  would 
be  wise  to  distribute  the  support  and  physical  facilities  for 
higher  education  in  the  state  of  Pennsylvania  among  these 
three  schools  in  such  a  way  as  to  contribute  to  the  best  inter- 
ests of  the  state  as  a  whole  and  to  the  development  of  the 
highest  efficiency  in  each  institution. 


149 

TABLE  52. 

Population,  Number  of  High  School  Graduates  and  Their  Dis- 
tribution Among  Higher  State  Educational  Institutions 
IN  the  Various  States  of  the  United  States,  1920. 


state 


Higher 

Population 

Number  of 

High  school 

Population* 

educational 

per 

high  school 

graduates 

institutions  t 

institution 

graduates^ 

per  institution 

2.348,174 

3 

782,725 

2,052 

684 

334,162 

1 

334,162 

570 

570 

1,752,204 

1 

1,752,204 

1,776 

1,776 

3,426,861 

1 

3,426,861 

10,620 

10,620 

939,629 

3 

313,209 

2,774 

925 

1,380,631 

1 

1,380,631 

3,595 

3,596 

223,003 

1 

223,003 

292 

292 

968,470 

1 

968,470 

928 

928 

2,895,832 

4 

723,958 

2,497 

624 

431,866 

2 

215,933 

1,219 

609 

6,485.280 

2 

3,242,640 

16,378 

8,189 

2,930,000 

2 

1,465,000 

9,710 

4,855 

2,404,021 

2 

1,202,021 

10,529 

5,264 

1,769,257 

2 

884,628 

7,060 

3,530 

2,416,630 

1 

2,416,630 

2,531 

2,531 

1,798,509 

1 

1,798,509 

1,748 

1,748 

768,014 

1 

768,014 

2,899 

2,899 

1,449,661 

1 

1,449,661 

1,936 

1,936 

3,852,356 

3 

1,284,115 

11,748 

3,916 

3,668,412 

3 

1,222,471 

9,583 

3,194 

2,387,125 

1 

2,387,125 

7,423 

7,423 

1,790,618 

3 

596,873 

1,855 

918 

3,404,055 

1 

3,404,055 

8,150 

8,150 

548,889 

3 

182,626 

1,560 

520 

1,296,372 

1 

1,296,372 

5,117 

6,117 

77,407 

1 

77,407 

227 

227 

443,083 

1 

443,083 

1,257 

1,257 

3,155,900 

1 

3,155,900 

6,293 

6,293 

360,350 

3 

120,116 

455 

152 

10,385,227 

3 

3,125,076 

16,043 

5,348 

2,559,123 

2 

1,279,561 

2,741 

1,370 

646,872 

2 

323,436 

1,863 

931 

5,759,394 

3 

1,919,798 

16,607 

6,536 

2,028,283 

3 

676,094 

4,733 

1,678 

783,389 

2 

391,694 

3,200 

1,600 

8,720,017 

3 

8.720,017 

18,109 

6,036 

604,397 

1 

664,397 

1,093 

1,093 

1,683,724 

4 

420,931 

1,254 

313 

636,547 

3 

212,182 

1,750 

583 

2,337,885 

1 

2,337,885 

2,104 

2,104 

4,653,228 

3 

1,554,409 

9,073 

3,024 

449,396 

2 

224,698 

1.083 

641 

352,428 

1 

352,428 

1,269 

1,269 

2,309,187 

5 

461,837 

2,760 

652 

1,356,621 

2 

678,311 

5,159 

2,679 

1,463,701 

1 

1,463,701 

2,347 

2,347 

2,632,067 

1 

2,632,067 

5,654 

5,654 

194,402 

1 

194,402 

428 

428 

Alabama 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut.  .  . 

Delware 

Florida 

Georgia 

Idaho 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts .  . 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Montana 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

New  Hampshire 
New  Jersey .... 
New  Mexico .  .  . 

New  York 

North  Carolina. 
North  Dakota. . 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania . . . 
Rhode  Island .  . 
South  Carolina. 
South  Dakota. . 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virginia 

Washington. . . . 
West  Virginia .  . 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 


m.  S.  Bureau  Census  Report,  1920. 

+U.  S.  Bulletin,  1920,  Statistics  of  State  Universities  and  State  Colleges. 

JU.  S.  Bureau  of  Education — unprinted  report. 

(3)    Income  of  the  Three  Pennsylvania  Institutions. — 

An  analysis  of  the  income  of  the  three  semi-public  institutions  in 
question  is  presented  in  Table  53  (page  151) .  It  has  been  impos- 
sible to  get  data  that  can  be  compared  with  any  high  degree  of 
reliability,  so  these  figures  must  be  taken  merely  as  showing 
general  tendencies.  Two  sets  of  figures  are  given  in  the  per- 
cent columns;  those  on  the  first  line  are  based  on  the  total 


150 

income,  while  those  on  the  second  line  exclude  income  from 
sales  and  service  and  from  miscellaneous  sources,  neither  of 
which  is  strictly  educational  in  tjrpe.  Taking  either  set  of 
figures  it  will  be  noted  that  the  largest  percents  of  income  at 
both  universities  are  from  student  fees  and  that  they  exceed 
50  percent,  the  usual  standard  which  has  been  set  as  marking 
the  percentage  of  income  that  should  come  from  such  a  source 
in  strictly  private  institutions. 

The  student  fees  of  Pennsylvania  State  College  constitute 
from  one-fourth  to  one-fifth  of  the  total  income.  The  position 
of  these  institutions  is  exactly  reversed  in  the  case  of  income 
from  public  source.  In  the  case  of  Pennsylvania  State  College 
it  rises  to  between  70  and  75  percent,  while  at  the  University 
of  Pittsburgh  and  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  it  falls 
close  to  one-third  and  one-sixth,  respectively.  The  amount 
received  from  private  gifts  is  the  smallest  at  Pennsylvania 
State  College,  the  highest  at  the  University  of  Pittsburgh, 
while  in  the  case  of  income  from  investments  and  other  inter- 
ests the  University  of  Pennsylvania  has  the  largest  proportion 
and  Pennsylvania  State  College  again  the  least. 

Perhaps  the  most  significant  thing  about  this  table  is  the 
large  proportion  of  income  at  the  two  universities  that  comes 
from  tuition  fees.  The  standard  of  50  percent  as  the  proper 
amount  of  income  from  student  fees  in  private  colleges  pre- 
sumes, of  course,  that  income  from  endowments  and  from 
gifts  make  up  the  other  half.  In  the  case  of  these  two  institu- 
tions, it  has  been  necessary  for  the  state  to  make  the  contribu- 
tions that  the  supporters  of  private  higher  institutions  would 
be  expected  to  finance.  The  fact  that  the  state  does  perform 
this  function  as  it  has  done  regularly  since  1907,  shows  clearly 
that  these  institutions  are  dependent  for  their  existence  upon 
the  state  for  their  support,  or  in  other  words  that  private  effort 
has  not  been  successful  in  providing  a  sufficient  number  of 
institutions  adequately  equipped  and  manned  to  meet  the 
needs  of  the  state. 


151 


Eh 


H 

Z 
t— I 

H 
W 
« 

Eh 

&, 
O 
za 
Ph 

W 
O 
H 
P^ 

O 
Eh 

O 

M 

H 
O 


en 
O 


P^  > 


Q 

P 
O 

< 


to 

IN 

CO 

m 

6? 

00 

d 

0 

t- 

■«t 

0 

c 
.2 

00 

uo 

0 

"3 

3 

00 

o 

00 

O 

05 

CO 

to 

.2 

£ 

o 

CO 

t-" 

S 

■< 

in 

in 

OJ 

^ 

CO 

■^ 

£ 

o-o 

05 
00 

g  M  > 

£  S  v 

c 

0! 

Tj< 

C5 

3 

C 

■* 

in 

o-;:  S 

O 

o 

lO 

05 

o  rf  ^ 

S 

2; 

to 

00* 

< 

-51 

CO 

■*o 

^ 

rH  rH 

E  S  « 

S§ 

c- 

■CO 

do 

IM 

CO 

<N 

05 

in 

ssf 

3 

^ 

■^ 

00 

8  "  S 

O 

00 

C3 

E 

< 

in 

CO 

to 

CO 

*^ 

&» 

N 

,^ 

«0  tr- 

^ 

•■* 

t- 

c 

CO 

t- 

od 

■3"o  § 

to 

00 

t- 

■4-J 

(M_ 

co 

t  'J  -^ 
•25  2 

a 

3 

CO 

00' 

co' 

00 

m  c  M 
£  0)  C 

o 
E 

o 

0 

0^ 

O*^  " 

<; 

o 

05 

o> 

0 

T-l 

6§ 

•CO 

■in 

CO.H 

?aco 

c-in 

r-l 

CO 

•^ 

o 

N 

j^ 

o 

05 

Oi 

0) 

« 

oo' 

00' 

00' 

rt 

c 

in 

IM 

(M 

4-> 

3 

a 

(M 

C- 

1/3 

O 

E 

a 

0" 

d 

o 

CO 

00 

<; 

Tf 

0 

OJ(M 

6? 

t-d 

G 

>H(M 

<U 

t- 

m'S 

IM 

c 

c 

01 

a> 

OJ 

o 

3 
O 

o 

a 
0 

CO 

E 

;z; 

Z 

00 

o 

< 

CO 

ov 

in 

in 

£5 

■a> 

t- 

■  tp 

U3^0 

-*  10 

0<M 

a 

in 

10 

CO 

■* 

c^ 

CO 

•2 

(7> 

CTj 

•^ 

4^ 

■*j 

■^ 

00 

N 

a 

c 

t- 

M 

00 

0) 

3 

00 

to 

(N 

T3 

O 

3 

E 

o 

CO 

in 

o 

n 

t- 

W 

<! 

oo_ 

t> 

.2 

<v 

'S 
"Si 

3 

— 
0 

o 

s 

(V 

^ 

s 

0) 

H 

2 

p 

Pl, 

E 

w 

H 

•*-• 

*M 

rt 

o 

0 

H 

t>. 

>. 

as 

1 

■4^ 

> 

0) 

(U 

_> 

_> 

c 

fl 

*s 

'c 

QJ 

p 

D 

PL, 

°  3 

■■3  So 


O  C 
«  OS 


T3_?; 


ca  2;  0) 

S    (1)  4-)    C 

0)  «-  t«  E  3 
g  4;  a  c  -is 
so  *-  ■"  01-3 

.  «,  V  w  03 

t-  c  o  £  o 

K)  3^  o  — 
d  I  6f  .S  3 
M  5  i^  .-  e 
'^"'^  o§ 
M  ts  3"~  o 

.£.£■"  2  a 
T3-a  cil  — 


152 

(4)  Finances  of  Higher  Educational  Institutions  in 
Pennsylvania. — It  has  been  found  impossible  to  procure 
satisfactory  comparable  data  regarding  the  finances  of  higher 
educational  institutions  in  the  United  States.  The  only 
central  agency  gathering  such  data  is  the  United  States 
Bureau  of  Education.  The  blanks  sent  out  by  this  Bureau 
are  filled  in  by  officers  of  the  institutions  who  in  the  absence 
of  positive  construction  interpret  them  differently.  Further- 
more, the  Bureau  does  not  discriminate  between  the  income 
from  educational  and  non-educational  departments.  Those 
universities  having  hospitals,  institutions,  museums,  etc., 
would,  of  course,  send  in  different  figures  according  to  whether 
they  interpret  the  blank  to  mean  that  they  should  or  that  they 
should  not  be  included.  It  has  been  found  impossible,  there- 
fore, to  use  these  data. 

Statistics  relative  to  the  expenditures  of  universities  are 
not  gathered  by  any  central  agency,  doubtless  due  to  the  fact 
that  it  is  much  more  difficult  to  get  comparable  data  in  this 
field  than  in  that  of  income.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that 
universities  are  organized  so  differently,  expenditures  of  a 
department  in  one  institution  is  in  one  school  and  another 
institution  is  in  another  school.  Furthermore,  there  is  no 
agreement  among  universities  as  to  the  best  way  to  take  care 
of  overhead  or  expenses  of  the  plant.  They  also  disagree 
among  themselves  as  to  the  unit  of  cost  that  should  be  adopted. 

Notwithstanding  all  of  these  objections  and  uncertainties 
we  venture  to  offer  (Tables  54,  55  and  56)  certain  statistics 
relative  to  the  cost  per  student  enrolled  in  each  school  in  the 
three  Pennsylvania  institutions  and  in  the  three  prominent 
state  universities  whose  population  taken  together  was 
approximately  the  same  in  1920  as  that  of  Pennsylvania. 
"While  every  care  within  our  power  has  been  taken  to  show  the 
difference  in  the  ways  in  which  these  figures  were  arrived  at, 
nevertheless  they  should  not  be  taken  as  satisfactory  from 
a  standpoint  of  either  accuracy  or  reliability.  The  tables  were 
prepared  by  Paul  A.  Mertz,  Professor  of  Education,  Ursinus 
College,  and  graduate  student  of  the  School  of  Education, 
University  of  Pennsylvania. 

The  justification  for  the  use  of  the  figures  here  is  to  show 
that  the  cost  of  education  in  the  Pennsylvania  institutions  is 


I 


153 


Z 


< 
> 

!^ 

CO 


K 

O 
CO 

O 
O 

K 
o 


CO 

H 
CO 

o 

O 
< 

o 

H 

a 
« 


Ph 

« 
a 
s 

CO 


W       Oh 


•II 


■r-l<M       " 

eq 

t- 

U3 

■"*C<3     • 

« 

o 

.-1 

■rHm      • 

e^ 

t- 

U3 

•O»00      • 

la 

;o 

•i-l(N      • 

■fl" 

to 

N 

•■■tt-l      • 

N 

•"f 

00 

•  u5;o    ■ 

t- 

o 

■Ota    ■ 

05 

\a 

<x> 

•005     ■ 

in 

o 

o 

•NN     • 

CO 

lO 

CO 

u5oqi-i     i-ios    -te 


t-c- 


CO  OS  to  to 


►-IM 


rt  rt  "  tno)  o 


oooooooooo 


o  o  o 
o  o  o 

X  J=  J3 


o  o  o  o  o  o 


•a.S 
o  g 

|i 

w« 
u° 
So 

-u   O 


c;  o 


O  V  e  u 
C  »-•  -w^ 

c  «  "^ 

•^  D.  D 

"o  ••?;  S 

t8  -w  O.t* 

•OWW  « 

0)  — "rt  u 
j:  c  u  o 

.■S  >>5  S 

n    O    °    S" 
H    (U    _.    K 

mja  o  >s 

Oh  a  B  •* 

g8s§ 
S  S-S  >< 

.2  M  £3  4) 
.5  Hi  <u  o 

J3  --"oja 


M  t-  t.  41       (Jo 


tSo^      — 


o  fl  a 


C  c  U  -t^  ■—  -*-^  m 

«  oj  iCLi.2  '^  c 

PL,  M°       ^  -- 


.2  « 


>.   V 


73  01  0)  0)  _  fe  ai 


^•2 


O'"^  o-o 


5  p       C-=  H 


C'0_StH     .   OS   <1»  tl  1=  CD 

.£-  (K^w.a  2  c  o  _ 

C  ■e'    3  ^  .r-  -^    (i)  ^   >,.^ 

u„  «  nW  S  oi      2  £  ^ 
°r5  fciJ-r.-:  S  8  «.« 

oo-Sp  c .2  °  *  c  aj 
J3CM  CO  o  "M^Prt 


154 


2: 

P 

H 

fH 

< 

H 

W 

a 

b 

n 

o 

►J 

rn 

K 

K-; 

^ 

o 

Ph 

o 

m 

O 

a 

Iz: 

w 

> 

s 
5 

H 

H 

S^ 

tf 

C/J 

f» 

5^ 

H 

O 

O 

H 

O 

t> 

H 

^ 

1 

o 

(— 1 

H 

•< 

U 

53 

^ 

« 

< 

H 

> 

(« 

h] 

^: 

in 

t-H      CO 

«    H 
Ah    W 


o 

:z; 
o 

5 
< 
a, 

S 
o 


•S  >» 


^(i: 


r 


t3 


>  c 


I  .-I  I 

O  •-! 


rfrH      ■ 

N 

in;D    • 

o>n    • 

Oi 

ocn    • 

in    • 

NN     • 

«    • 

OC^t-l  lOrH  OD 

WTf  t-  Ifi  moo 
OSCOO  (M  ;0  t- 
•l  i-l -^  CO  1-1  iH 


K5C0  5D 
05tD.-H 


C-OOOt-intOCO'^O 
t-OOlMIMiMN'l'f-l 

N0>0>iO.-Ht-y5t>C0 
.-li-(i-lNOr-(t-U5C- 


E 


2;S 


So 
^  ^O  to 

3--  o"^  u'.a'o  E 

T  «  E  a-'S  c  2  l3 


ooooooooooooo-'-^o 

C>_  ^_  _  ^^  ,^  ^^  ^_  _  ^_,  ^_^_^_  ^^   pj^ 


'  o  o  o  o  o 


o  o  o  o  o  o„  _ 
o  o  o  o  o  o^  o 


aououu^jo 


x;j3x!j;js. 


OwwwwwwwjwmwwmmOm 


H 


B 
(V 

F 

1) 

3 

-M 

a 

C 

ca 

01 

01 

^ 

is 
c 

«J5 

m 

«- 

OJ3 

O 

C 

bf 

S  a 


E 

eij 

A! 

"ni 

O 

"rt 

e 

0 
0) 

s 

c 

c 
E 

S 

M 

t4 

a 

w 

g-Q 


-323 
Si  ^  s 

g  0.0) 

o)"3  E 


CJ 


-^  ■*->  Xj 


4_>    D    CO    ^ 

o  4->  k.  a 

£  MC  §■ 


0)  «j  CD  3 


E     ^     c 


o-      ^      ^ 


2    >■ 


=s    s 


U  0)  ^    •. 

c  o  2  f 


I-}  be 

8| 


■B    ^ 


E    a 


S     2 


^  +J  -4J 


-M      ^      T3 


3       rt 


S  o«=,o  3c:  oS  S  cS 

m  J^  £J  "  *^  'S  •"  tr  T3  **  "* 
01  S  oS  c  CTsg  c  g  =3 

3.S_  clc  oi5ri    o  00  to 
^E-B  g-g  «c'^  ^  c  c 

X    Qj    Wir^^^    25^^    OJ    0) 
»C3S<5^   E.-^^fSoI 

£  SjO)^.„^*;  >^^^ 

J5  C  g  O  O  o  a!_0)  O  O  O 
M^  "^OlOJOlSaO'tUOlCj 

s  -S  gj  'c  'c  'c  ^-  o  c  'a  'c  .2 

.4-  -5^  g 


.-  o  *< 

PhSW 


I'sil 


155 


o 

o 


M 
K 

> 

t-H 

H 
K 
Eh 

[i, 

O 

o 
o 

K 

o 

H 

w 


Q 

« 
W 

»— t 
O 
H 

w 

W 
Q 
12 
H 

O 

K 
H 

CQ 

12: 


<v 

to 
S  — 

""if 

M 

1 

05 

O 

1 

1 

t-00 

oin 

iJ5      ■ 
X      ■ 
N     • 

o 

•CO 
•  rH 

.2  — 

^     1 
1      1   IN 

gr 

2  1 

1 

OlO 

•  OS    • 

■    -co    • 

•IN 

•■^ 

IN 
IN 

1 

oc^ootooo  t- 

iO  '^  ca  C-l  C-  5D 
•«  !£>  C^  T-l -^  r-l 

1-^ 

■OS 
•  t- 

to 
to 

IN 

1 

O 

2 

CO  IN  tD  INN-* 
Tl<  CO  IN  t- IN  "3 
C)  IN  CO  .-1  tH  ,H 

T-c             IN 

o 

lO 

: 

University 
of  Penn- 
sylvania 

IN 

1 

IN 

rH 

05  tOOO 
rMOOO 

•Otr- 
•<ocg 

•ION 

•N 

•CO 

•CO 

00  •"t  OS  to 
ININ'-'t- 
IN        tOOO 

>>  1 

•tic. 2 
£  c  fi 

M 

O 
<N 

<ooo 

moo 

IN 

••(- 

•CO 
•CO 

••^ 

•o 

•CO 

N05000 
Oi->lNlN 
N       t-tO 

University 

of 
Wisconsin 

O 
05 

COOOOJ 
OlCOrH 

OOCO>-I 

to 

•MM 

•■»<■<)< 
•r-IOS 

00 

CO 

rH 

University 

of 
Michigan 

1920-21 

«      • 
00      • 
00      ■ 

IN 

TO 

■O 
■lO 
•■^ 

lOOrH 

University 

of 
Minnesota 

1920-21 

CO  0» -^  in  00 -tl<  r-<  T-l  t-      • 
«M3>  00  «>  N  50  Tj- to  in      . 
OJlOOt-lr-llNr-103t>      ■ 

CO        rH 

00 

o 

rH 

o    S 

Q 

01 

.a 

"o 
bi 

"o 

U 

c 

M 

O 
3 

■o 

W 

"o 

"o 
o 

o 

bn 

c 

S  £ 

bo  = 

^S 

0*0 

o'o 
o  o 

E 
o 
c 
o 

V 

w 

o 

i> 

o 

g 

£ 
o 

o 

"3 

"o 
o 
j: 
o 
GO 

•  a 

•  c 

•  c 
'..i 

'.V 

it 

"31 
o  c 
X  j: 

O    I 

[/jiy 

>  o  c 

J  o  c 
JOJC/ 

•  Q) 

;  c 

''S 

I'D 
.   lU 

is 

5.S 

b  a; 

5"o 

j'o 

5   O 
3J3 
i  O 
W 

8 

S 
o 
c 
o 
o 
W 
a; 
B 
o 
W 

"o 

o 

< 
C 

E 

o 

"o 
o 

o 

3 

"o 
"o 

O 
J3 

CJ 

> 

c 

Q 

"o 

"o 
o 

J=. 
o 

o 
o 
j= 

0) 
05 
3 
T3 

o 

6 

CO 

£ 

"o 

"o 
o 

t/J 

IN 

I      . 
tH    CO 


^a     ^ 


i^   -s    S-i    « 


CO  a;  5    • 
•Cxi'*  "> 

t.  rj  o 

C3X 
ffi  3   tJ  c- 

3  bo 

toc<i  "iS 

moo  3  ^ 

feiS 


Q)  a) 
bO  ■- 


a 


bi)S 


-£^^ 


'oT;  Sc<i 

;  3  (u.s  ca 
'.c  So  C<I 

;   to  i;  .o  O 
M    O    o    CJ 

>  a)  m^ 
'c  Ci  p  C 


156 

not  excessive  and  thereby  to  establish  the  fact  that  the  funds 
are  on  the  whole  being  economically  expended.  Such  wide 
discrepancies  as  do  exist,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Veterinary 
School  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  and  the  Medical 
School  of  the  University  of  Pittsburgh,  should  be  referred  to 
the  Board  whose  appointment  has  been  suggested,  inasmuch 
as  questions  dealing  with  the  distribution  of  fields  of  instruc- 
tion among  the  various  institutions  cannot  be  dealt  with  in 
this  brief  study. 

(5)  Equipment  and  Salaries. — While  exact  data  cannot 
be  obtained  it  is  evident  that  all  three  institutions  are  lacking 
in  equipment  as  compared  with  institutions  of  like  grade  in 
the  United  States  at  large.  They  occupy  a  like  position  as 
regards  salaries  paid  professors.  Since  these  are  the  two 
most  essential  factors  in  the  success  of  higher  educational 
institutions  it  is  important  to  the  interest  of  the  people  of  the 
state  that  something  be  done  to  make  better  provision  for  the 
higher  education  of  their  children  and  also  in  order  to  enable 
them  to  have  the  benefits  of  the  best  advice  and  assistance  in 
carrying  on  their  various  enterprises. 

(6)  Income  From  Endowments  and  Appropriations. 

— In  this  connection  it  is  pertinent  to  point  out  that  one  of  the 
most  significant  movements  in  recent  years  is  the  gradual 
rise  of  certain  of  the  large  state  universities  into  positions  of 
commanding  leadership.  Michigan,  Illinois  and  California 
are  possibly  the  most  noted  examples.  There  are  but  few 
private  institutions  that  can  long  remain  in  the  same  class 
with  them,  because  of  the  large  endowments  that  will  be 
required  to  match  the  appropriations  received  from  the  state, 
and  the  income  from  endowments  which  have  been  sub- 
scribed by  private  individuals,  in  these  state  institutions.  A 
private  university  requires  today  an  endowment  of  close  to 
fifty  million  dollars  in  order  to  have  a  financial  basis  equiva- 
lent to  the  leading  state  universities.  Table  54  (page  153) 
shows  the  income  for  current  expenses  from  appropriations  and 
from  endowments  in  the  leading  universities  and  colleges  of 
Agriculture  and  Mechanic  Arts  of  the  country,  including  the 
three  Pennsylvania  institutions.    It  should  be  noted  that  the 


157 

figures  of  the  latter  group  include  the  figures  for  hospitals 
and  other  non-educational  activities. 

(7)  Limited  Accommodations. — Another  significant 
fact  is  the  inability  of  the  higher  educational  institutions  in 
this  state  to  accommodate  the  number  that  apply,  each  of  the 
three  institutions  named  having  been  compelled  to  deny 
admission  in  the  fall  of  1922  to  a  number  of  students. 

Inquiry  was  made  to  each  of  these  three  institutions  as  to 
the  numbers  that  failed  of  admission  because  of  lack  of  accom- 
modations to  take  care  of  them.  The  number  reported  by 
the  University  of  Pennsylvania  for  the  year  1922  was  591, 
distributed  as  follows:  184  College  of  Liberal  Arts  (Pre- 
Medical  and  Pre-Dental),  69  School  of  Education,  338 
Wharton  School.  The  Pennsylvania  State  College  reported 
478,  distributed  as  follows:  300  Engineering,  229  Liberal 
Arts,  84  Natural  Science,  65  Department  of  Home  Economics. 
These  distribution  figures  include  200  who  did  not  send  in  their 
application  blanks  "presumably  because  they  believed  there 
was  little  chance  of  admission."  The  University  of  Pitts- 
burgh reported  265,  distributed  as  follows:  150  School  of 
Pharmacy,  100  School  of  Dentistry,  15  School  of  Medicine. 
These  figures  do  not  include  those  who  were  rejected  for  any 
reason  other  than  for  the  lack  of  physical  accommodations. 
The  number  not  admitted  for  other  reasons  in  the  University 
of  Pennsylvania  was  1,327,  in  the  Pennsylvania  State  College 
(as  stated)  200;  no  figures  upon  this  point  have  been  obtained 
from  the  University  of  Pittsburgh. 

(8)  Free  Scholarships. — At  each  of  the  three  institutions 
there  are  scholarships  available,  some  of  which  are  granted  with- 
out regard  to  competitive  qualifications,  while  others  are  de- 
pendent upon  school  records  and  the  need  for  aid  because  of 
limited  economic  conditions.  The  so-called  senatorial  scholar- 
ships belong  to  the  first  class;  these  are  granted  upon  recom- 
mendations of  members  of  the  State  Senate.  In  the  University 
of  Pennsylvania  there  are  during  this  year  319  such  scholar- 
ships, in  the  University  of  Pittsburgh  171,  and  at  the  Penn- 
sylvania State  College  157.  The  total  number  of  scholarships 
other  than  senatorial  are  as  follows:   University  of  Pennsyl- 


158 

vania  481,  the  University  of  Pittsburgh  216,  and  the  Pennsyl- 
vania State  College  64. 

It  will  be  observed  from  these  data  that  only  a  very  small 
number  of  High  School  graduates  in  Pennsylvania  have  the 
opportunity  of  obtaining  free  tuition  in  a  higher  educational 
institution  in  the  state.  The  fact  that  most  of  the  scholar- 
ships are  competitive  in  nature  still  further  limits  the  oppor- 
tunity of  those  young  people  who  do  not  possess  the  highest 
academic  qualifications.  Unfortunately  such  persons  can  be 
admitted  only  upon  the  recommendations  of  members  of  the 
Legislatm'e.  Inasmuch  as  the  number  of  scholarships  avail- 
able to  each  senator  is  limited,  it  is  thus  seen  that  opportu- 
nities are  far  from  equal  for  the  boys  and  girls  of  this  state  to 
receive  the  benefits  of  a  higher  education. 

These  two  different  sorts  of  limitations  placed  upon  the 
obtaining  of  free  tuition  in  higher  educational  institutions  of 
the  state  limiting  registration  to  "possession  of  brains"  or 
"pull"  make  it  very  important  that  the  state  provide  means 
whereby  all  who  desire  may  obtain  the  benefits  of  a  higher 
education  at  the  lowest  possible  cost. 

The  appropriation  of  $56,000  made  by  the  Legislature  of 
1921  to  pay  the  tuition  for  students  in  the  colleges  of  the 
state,  which  have  been  obtained  under  competitive  examina- 
tions, have  doubtless  worked  to  the  benefit  of  a  large  number 
who  would  not  otherwise  have  been  able  to  attend  college. 
The  actual  workings  of  the  plan  and  its  bearings  upon  the 
question  in  hand  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  state,  however,  we 
believe  it  to  be  creditable  and  recommend  its  continuance. 
It  will  probably  serve  the  purposes  of  the  state  much  better 
if  it  were  limited  to  those  who  otherwise  could  not  obtain  the 
benefits  of  a  college  education. 

(9)  Control  of  Boards  of  Trustees. — While  the  Board  of 
Trustees  of  each  of  these  three  institutions  is  legally  an  agent 
of  the  Commonwealth  in  the  expenditure  of  the  state  funds, 
the  extent  of  the  control  which  it  has  through  these  boards 
varies  considerably  by  reason  of  the  differences  in  the  manner 
in  which  they  are  chosen.  The  considerable  variety  in  the 
agencies  that  choose  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Trustees 
at  Pennsylvania  State  College,  and  also  the  brief  terms  for 


159 

which  they  are  chosen,  would  naturally  promote  a  truer 
recognition  of  the  needs  of  the  state  in  the  deliberations  of 
these  boards  than  that  which  would  characterize  the  action 
of  the  Boards  of  Trustees  at  the  two  universities,  which 
boards  serve  for  life  and  chose  then-  own  successors,  subject 
only  to  the  limitation  that  the  alumni  have  given  the  right 
to  nominate  in  a  certain  percentage  of  the  vacancies. 

Conclusions. 

Summing  up  what  has  been  said  thus  far  the  situation  which 
confronts  the  state  at  the  present  time  may  be  set  forth  as  follows: 

The  state  needs  at  least  three  finely  equipped  and  efficiently 
conducted  institutions  of  higher  learning  in  order  to  place  itself 
on  an  equal  footing  with  other  states  in  the  field  of  higher  education, 
and  the  plan  which  has  been  followed  for  the  past  century  or  more 
of  depending  upon  private  institutions  seems  now  to  be  at  the 
breaking  point.  This  is  true  both  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
need  for  a  sufficient  number  of  institutions  and  also  in  order  to 
give  all  of  its  youths  greater  equality  of  opportunity  to  receive  the 
benefit  of  a  higher  education.  It  is,  therefore,  incumbent  upon  the 
state  to  find  ways  in  which  such  institutions  may  be  secured,  either 

(1)  by  gradually  increased  appropriations  to  the  Boards  of 
Trustees  of  these  institutions  under  such  an  arrangement  with 
these  Boards  as  will  insure  that  the  appropriations  will  be  spent 
in  such  a  way  as  will  satisfy  most  efficiently  the  needs  of  the  state; 

(2)  by  making  suitable  arrangements  with  the  Boards  of  Trustees 
of  other  private  institutions  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  same 
purpose;  or  (3)  by  the  establishment  of  new  institutions  entirely 
under  state  support  and  control. 

Viewed  in  the  light  of  the  history  of  Pennsylvania  and  of  the 
intimate  relationship  that  exists  between  the  three  semi-public 
institutions  and  the  people  of  the  state,  it  would  seem  that  the 
natural  solution  would  be  for  the  state  to  base  the  far-reaching 
system  of  higher  education  which  it  should  possess  in  the  future 
upon  that  furnished  by  these  three  historic  institutions — the 
University  of  Pennsylvania,  the  Western  University  of  Pennsyl- 
vania (University  of  Pittsburgh),  and  the  Pennsylvania  State 
College. 


160 

Possibilities  of  the  Realization  of  These 
Conclusions. 

Certain  practical  features  of  the  situation  now  existing  in  each 
of  these  three  institutions  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  realization 
of  these  conclusions  should  now  be  considered. 

Since  Pennsylvania  State  College  has  been  dependent  to  so  large 
a  degree  upon  the  appropriations  of  the  Legislature,  and  since  its 
trustees  have  been  chosen  through  more  popular  agencies  than 
those  of  the  other  two  institutions,  it  would  seem  that  the  state 
would  have  little  or  no  difficulty  in  formulating  such  a  policy  for 
the  administration  of  this  institution  to  secure  through  its  manage- 
ment the  realization  of  those  conditions  which  would  meet  the 
needs  of  the  state.  This  is  made  clear  in  the  following  statement 
made  by  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Trustees : 

"Since  the  Pennsylvania  State  College  has  been  maintained  and 
supported  out  of  the  public  funds,  and  since  it  as  a  corporation 
formally  recognizes  that  it  is  the  corporate  agent  of  the  state,  with 
the  legal  title  to  the  plant  in  the  corporation  and  the  equitable  title 
thereof  vested  in  the  Commonwealth,  and  further  recognizes  that 
it  as  a  corporation  is  subject  to  the  direction  of  the  Commonwealth, 
it  appears  the  Commonwealth  may  formulate  any  new  policy  of 
administration  it  may  desire." 

The  problem  is  a  more  difficult  one  when  it  comes  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  two  universities.  The  University  of  Pennsylvania 
has  in  years  gone  by  ranked  and  still  does  rank  among  the  highest 
of  the  universities  of  the  country.  For  a  number  of  years,  however, 
fears  have  arisen  that  it  could  not  maintain  that  position  because 
of  increasing  amounts  of  endowments  and  of  other  sources  of 
income  that  have  come  to  those  institutions  in  other  states  that 
were  its  equal.  The  state  has  rendered  a  fine  service  not  only  to 
the  university  but  to  the  state  itself  in  the  past  fifteen  years  in 
enabling  it  to  meet  the  emergencies  growing  out  of  its  increasing 
deficits.  It  seems  now  that  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  must, 
in  order  to  maintain  the  highest  plane  of  efficiency,  find  still  addi- 
tional sources  of  income  or  obtain  larger  appropriations  or  limit 
the  scope  of  its  activities.  It  would  be  very  unfortunate  not  only 
for  the  institution  but  for  the  state  if  the  latter  contingency 
resulted.     It  remains  to  be  seen  whether  private  funds  will  be 


161 

provided  in  sufficient  amounts  to  enable  the  university  to  main- 
tain the  position  in  the  education  of  the  nation  that  rightfully 
belongs  to  it. 

Efforts  in  this  direction  have  already  been  started.  Unless  the 
endowment  can  be  increased  by  thirty  or  forty  millions  of  dollars 
and  the  plant  and  equipment  considerably  improved,  it  would  be 
to  the  best  interests  of  the  state  and  the  nation  for  the  Board  of 
Trustees  of  the  University  to  enter  into  such  an  arrangement  with 
the  state  as  would  secure,  on  the  one  hand,  the  needed  increases 
in  plant,  equipment  and  income  comparable  in  amount  with  the 
great  services  it  is  capable  of  rendering,  and  on  the  other  hand 
guarantee  to  the  state  that  the  money  so  given  will  be  spent  in 
those  ways  which  will  most  contribute  to  the  advancement  of  the 
welfare  of  the  state. 

The  University  could  then  play  its  part  in  maintaining  the 
state  of  Pennsylvania  and  the  city  of  Philadelphia  in  the  high 
position  they  have  always  taken  in  national  affairs.  If,  however, 
an  arrangement  satisfactory  both  to  the  University  and  to  the 
state  could  not  be  worked  out,  it  would  seem  incumbent  upon  the 
state  to  follow  the  course  of  one  of  the  other  alternatives  mentioned 
above;  viz.,  the  development  of  some  other  private  institutions  in 
the  eastern  part  of  the  state  with  which  satisfactory  arrangements 
could  be  made,  or  to  establish  an  entirely  new  institution  and  then 
conduct  it  in  such  a  way  as  would  realize  the  ideals  that  a  system 
of  state  higher  education  should  accomplish. 

The  University  of  Pittsburgh  should  render  a  service  to  western 
Pennsylvania  similar  to  that  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  in 
the  eastern  part  of  the  state.  That  which  has  been  said  regarding 
the  best  policy  for  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  applies  on  the 
whole  to  the  University  of  Pittsburgh  as  well.  It  is  just  as  impor- 
tant to  the  state  to  have  an  institution  in  Pittsburgh  or  in  its 
vicinity  which  will  render  the  service  that  a  higher  educational 
institution  should  render,  as  it  is  to  have  an  institution  of  the  same 
kind  in  the  vicinity  of  Philadelphia. 

Inasmuch  as  the  question  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  private  means 
cannot  be  solved  in  another  year  or  two  in  the  case  of  both  institu- 
tions, and  inasmuch  as  it  would  take  a  number  of  years  for  another 
institution  should  render,  as  it  is  to  have  an  institution  of  the  same 
reason  that  it  may  prove  best  in  the  end  to  make  some  combination 


162 

of  public  and  private  support,  such  as  exists  at  Cornell  University, 
it  is  desirable  to  indicate  a  course  of  action  for  the  present  which 
will  be  adapted  to  either  of  these  three  contingencies. 

A  Board  of  State  Control  of  Higher  Education  in 
Institutions  Receiving  State  Aid. 

It  would  seem  that  the  future  further  appropriations  to  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania  and  the  University  of  Pittsburgh 
might  well  be  subject  to  a  greater  degree  of  state  control,  not  that 
there  has  been  any  waste  or  lack  of  conscientious  desire  to  promote 
the  best  interests  of  the  state,  but  in  order  that  the  principle  of 
state  control  of  state  appropriations  may  be  realized  and  also  in 
order  to  insure  that  the  Trustees  of  the  Universities  in  the  making 
of  their  plans  give  such  recognition  to  the  needs  of  the  state  that 
the  fullest  possible  return  will  come  back  to  it  for  the  money 
expended. 

At  the  present  time  appropriations  to  the  various  departments 
of  these  institutions  are  made  by  their  respective  Boards  of 
Trustees.  As  a  matter  of  fact  they  are  applied  to  meet  the  deficit, 
as  it  is  called — meaning  by  this  term  the  difference  between  the 
expenses  of  running  the  institution  and  the  income  from  all  of  its 
departments.  This  means  that  the  needs  of  the  universities  as 
now  organized  and  conducted  are  given  the  first  consideration. 
There  would  be  nothing  wrong  with  this  provided  the  trustees 
took  care  constantly  to  abolish  or  limit  those  departments  in  the 
universities  that  seemed  to  render  little  service  to  the  state,  and 
establish  new  departments  to  meet  new  developments  in  the 
social  life  of  the  state. 

It  is  at  this  point  that  the  practice  which  has  so  long  prevailed, 
of  making  private  boards  the  agent  of  the  state  for  the  expenditure 
of  its  funds,  fails  to  make  certain  that  the  best  interests  of  the 
state  are  secured.  That  which  has  just  been  said  does  not  apply, 
of  course,  to  those  special  appropriations  made  by  the  Legislature 
for  particular  departments.  In  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  at 
the  present  time  for  example  they  cover  the  School  of  Education 
and  the  Extension  courses.  These  special  appropriations  are  to 
be  approved  inasmuch  as  they  insure  the  use  of  money  for  those 
purposes  which  the  state  believes  to  be  capable  of  rendering  direct 
services.    It  is  quite  reasonable  to  expect,  however,  that  the  con- 


163 

trol  by  a  public  board  created  for  that  purpose  by  the  State 
Legislature  could  better  care  for  the  interest  of  the  state  than  the 
Legislature  itself. 

There  are  other  advantages  of  a  public  board  for  higher  educa- 
tion. If  such  a  board  were  to  have  certain  responsibilities  con- 
nected with  the  appropriations  of  all  three  of  the  institutions  they 
could  doubtless  make  such  an  adjustment  between  the  work  of 
all  of  them  as  to  avoid  useless  duplication  of  effort  and  to  check  any 
tendency  which  might  appear  to  support  departments  which  were 
not  fully  efficient  or  which  did  not  seem  capable  of  rendering  as 
much  service  to  the  state.  It  is  very  probable,  too,  that  such  a 
board  could  also,  through  its  recommendations  to  the  Legislature, 
or  through  influence  with  the  Boards  of  Trustees,  foster  the 
development  of  those  departments  in  said  institutions  which  can 
be  carried  on  most  successfully  therein,  and  curtail  or  abolish 
altogether  those  departments  where  the  conditions  do  not  seem 
favorable  for  their  continuance. 

Such  a  board  would  also  be  of  considerable  advantage  to  the 
institutions  themselves  inasmuch  as  the  present  arrangement  of 
securing  appropriations  is  quite  unsatisfactory  in  this  one  very 
important  respect.  Another  matter  which  the  board  should  have 
in  mind  is  the  unnecessary  duplication  in  Extension  service  as  well 
as  in  departments  doing  work  upon  the  campus.  It  should  give 
attention  not  only  to  unnecessary  wastes  of  funds  but  also  to 
standards  of  entrance  required  to  undertake  the  work,  and  to  the 
quality  of  performance  required  to  receive  credit  for  degrees. 

The  universities  hesitate  to  incur  obligation  even  for  depart- 
ments under  special  state  appropriation  which  will  involve 
expenditures  after  the  appropriation  expires,  for  fear  that  it  will 
not  be  renewed  and  that  in  consequence  the  universities  will  be 
unable  to  meet  their  obligations  without  undue  strain.  Doubtless 
there  are  duplications  in  appropriations,  some  of  which  are  war- 
ranted, others  of  which  are  unwarranted.  A  State  Board  in  control 
of  all  of  this  would  greatly  assist  if  the  control  were  exercised  by  a 
single  governmental  body.  Just  what  is  the  best  form  for  this 
board  of  control  it  is  difficult  to  say.  This  matter  should  likewise 
be  referred  to  the  proposed  Commission.  In  the  meantime  a 
temporary  board  could  be  appointed  by  the  Governor  to  serve 
until  such  time  as  this  matter  is  finally  determined. 


164 

State  Board  for  the  Control  of  Schools  of  Education 
in  the  Three  Institutions. 

The  principle  of  state  control  through  a  public  board  of  the 
appropriations  made  to  private  higher  educational  institutions 
may  be  applied  to  all  such  appropriations  as  recommended  above, 
or  in  case  such  a  plan  does  not  meet  with  the  favor  of  the  Governor 
and  the  Legislature  upon  the  one  hand  and  the  institutions  them- 
selves upon  the  other,  it  may  be  narrowed  to  only  a  portion  of  such 
appropriations.  Among  the  fields  in  which  it  would  seem  that  the 
principle  could  be  most  easily  applied  is  that  of  appropriations  for 
Schools  of  Education,  inasmuch  as  this  field  renders  service  to  the 
state,  of  which  there  is  great  need,  and  in  the  conduct  of  which  it  is 
much  to  be  desired  that  all  three  institutions  co-operate  in  such  a 
way  as  to  produce  the  greatest  benefit  to  the  state  as  a  whole  from 
their  individual  and  collective  efforts. 

In  order  to  meet  the  needs  of  teacher-training  and  the  need  for 
the  improvement  of  the  45,000  teachers  in  service  of  this  state, 
three  fully  developed  institutions  are  none  too  many.  While 
certain  subjects  might  be  taught  at  all  of  them,  each  institution 
would  develop  its  specialties,  the  selection  of  which  could  be  made 
in  accordance  with  the  peculiar  situations  surrounding  each  school 
and  the  demands  made  upon  it.  The  division  of  the  work  among 
these  schools  should  be  determined  by  such  a  board.  Graduate 
Schools  of  Education  should  be  established  in  such  of  these  institu- 
tions as  are  adapted  for  this  work. 

It  is  believed,  however,  that  this  board  should  not,  now  at  least, 
displace  altogether  the  Boards  of  Trustees  of  these  institutions. 
While  it  should  have  the  power  to  approve  or  disapprove  items  in 
the  budget  and  the  rules  and  regulations  for  the  conduct  of  the 
schools  as  proposed  by  the  School  of  Education  in  each  institution 
through  their  Boards  of  Trustees,  it  should  seek  to  exercise  its 
influence  by  guiding  and  suggesting  rather  than  by  directing  and 
controlling.  It  is  believed  that  in  this  way  each  school  would  have 
the  best  opportunity  of  exercising  initiative  and  of  reaching  its 
fullest  efficiency. 

It  is  believed  also  that  this  board  should  be  a  board  existing 
solely  for  this  purpose  and  that  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  its 


165 

functions  may  be  extended  to  appropriations  for  other  purposes. 
This  plan  will  be  in  accord  with  the  past  policy  of  the  state,  which 
in  the  establishment  of  other  state  institutions  such  as  Normal 
Schools,  insane  asylums,  penitentiaries,  etc.,  has  placed  local  boards 
in  charge.  While  such  a  board  would  not  be  a  local  board,  yet  it 
would  be  in  charge  of  a  single  function,  nevertheless  a  function 
with  such  large  magnitude  as  would  require  considerable  time  of 
those  persons  appointed  upon  it,  possibly  all  of  the  time  that  a 
busy  man  could  be  expected  to  give  to  public  affairs.  Such  a 
board  becoming  interested  in  its  problems  would,  with  the  assist- 
ance and  co-operation  that  it  could  obtain  from  the  Boards  of 
Trustees  and  the  faculties  of  the  three  institutions,  do  more  for 
the  development  of  education  in  the  state  and  for  the  higher 
institutions  themselves  than  a  board  which  had  also  other  types 
of  schools  to  require  their  attention. 

Such  a  board  should  work  in  the  closest  co-operation  also  with 
the  State  Department  of  Education  in  the  realization  of  its  plans. 
The  function  of  the  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction 
should  be  to  co-ordinate  the  efforts  of  this  board  with  those  boards 
in  control  of  other  portions  of  the  public  school  system,  and  to 
stimulate  and  encourage  the  advancement  of  its  work.  As  will  be 
pointed  out  in  the  section  of  this  study  dealing  with  the  office  of 
the  State  Department  of  Public  Instruction  there  are  a  number  of 
ways  in  which  the  office  and  the  faculties  of  the  Schools  of  Educa- 
tion should  work  in  the  closest  harmony.  For  these  reasons  the 
State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  should  serve  as  the 
secretary  and  executive  officer  of  the  board. 

It  is  believed  that  eventually  the  state  will  have  these  centers  of 
higher  education  working  in  close  harmony.  Whether  it  is  a  single 
institution  or  three  separate  institutions,  whether  one  or  more 
of  these  state-supported  centers  would  be  in  connection  with  a 
private  institution,  there  should  be  a  single  controlling  board 
co-ordinating  the  efforts  of  all  three,  eliminating  wastes  of  money 
and  of  time  and  of  effort  upon  the  parts  of  teachers  and  students 
alike,  both  on  the  campus  and  in  Extension  work  throughout  the 
state.  Whatever  steps  are  taken  in  regard  to  control  should  have 
this  in  mind  as  the  most  probable  outcome.  A  Commission  on  the 
one  hand  to  study  the  entire  problem  intensively  during  the  next 
two  ji^ears  and  a  Board  on  the  other  hand  to  manage  all  the  state's 


166 

efforts  in  this  direction  until  such  time  as  it  seems  wise  to  make  a 
change  in  it,  seems  to  furnish  the  best  immediate  solution  of  the 
problem  involved. 

Appropriations  for  Higher  Educational 
Institutions. 

There  is  given  in  Table  57  the  combined  amounts  of 
appropriations  from  the  states  and  from  the  United  States  to  the 
higher  educational  institutions  in  ten  of  the  principal  states  of  the 
Union  including  Pennsylvania.  In  absolute  amounts  Pennsylvania 
is  the  lowest  except  three,  Indiana,  Wisconsin  and  New  York, 

TABLE  57. 
Income  for  Current  Expenses  From  Appropriations 
AND  From  Endowments  in  the  Leading  Univer- 
sities and  State  Colleges  of  the  Country.* 


INSTITUTIONS 

AND 

STATES 

Appropriations — 
State  and  Ignited 
States  combined 

Income  from 
endowments 

Private  Universities 

$2,021,562 

Yale 

1,388,296 

1,563,592 

Princeton 

369,681 

Semi-Public  Universities 

t,  Cornell 

$1,348,636 
627,706 

2,841,936 

3,152,576 

1,670,863 

715,978 

954 , 885 

3,026,071 

1,756,488 
1,269,583 
3,431,038 
2,355,423 
998,221 
77,394 

3,140,661 
1,478,516 

129,880 
1,348,636 
2,663,843 

287,337 
2,070,833 

305,673 
2,207,657 
1,222,114 

627,706 

381,510 

2,135,424 

738,113 

575,161 

State  Universities 
^   California 

University  of  California 

368,821 

Illinois 

32,451 

100,389 

54,661 

45,728 

58,507 

Iowa  State  College  of  Agriculture  and  Mechani- 

35,088 

23,419 

161,056 

University  of  Michigan 

90,320 

70,736 

Minnesota 

109,883 

New  York 

738,113 

Cornell  University 

738,113 

Ohio 

77,047 

Ohio  University 

5,865 

Ohio  State  University 

62,356 

8,826 

Pennsylvania 

636,913 

Pennsylvania  State  College 

31,020 

University  of  Pennsylvania 

575,161 

University  of  Pittsburgh 

30 , 732 

Wisconsin 

University  of  Wisconsin 

41,533 

*U.  S.  Bureau  of  Education  Report,  1919-20,  in  press. 


167 


TABLE  58. 

Per  Capita  Distribution  of  State  and  United  States 

Appropriations  Combined  Given  to  Higher 

Education,  1920. 


Pennsylvania 
California ... 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Michigan ... 
Minnesota.  . 
New  York .  .  , 

Ohio 

Wisconsin .  . . 


i  .25 
.83 
.49 
.58 

1.26 
.91 

1.31 
.14 
.46 
.81 


TABLE  59. 

Percent  of  State  Income  Given  to  Higher  Educational 

Institutions  in  Ten  States  of  the  Union,  1920. 


STATES 

Higher  educational 
institutions 

Pennsylvania 

.0003 

California 

.0009 
.0005 

.0008 

.0016 

.0012 

.0021 

.0002 

Ohio 

.0005 

.0013 

TABLE  60. 
Amounts  and  Per  Capita  Distribution  of  State  Appropriations 
TO  Higher  Education,   1920. 


state 

Amounts  of  state* 
appropriations 

Per  capita 
distribution 

$1,893,231 
2,682,597 
2,871,500 
1,438,650 
2,807,733 
3,209,144 
2,948,851 
1.532,906 
2,123,633 
1,926.160 

$   .22 

California 

.78 

.44 

.49 

1.17 

.88 

1.23 

New  York 

.15 

Ohio 

.37 

Wisconsin 

.73 

•U.  S.  Bulletin,  1920,  Statistics  of  State  Universities  and  State  Colleges. 


which  appropriates  only  for  the  School  of  Agriculture  at  Cornell 
University,  and  the  School  of  Forestry  at  Syracuse  University.  In 
seven  other  states  the  appropriations  are  larger.    They  are  given 


168 

in  ascending  order  as  follows:    Ohio,  California,  Iowa,  Minnesota, 
Illinois,  and  Michigan, 

This  is  not  the  best  way,  however,  to  make  comparisons  of 
appropriations  owing  to  the  differences  in  population  and  in  the 
wealth  of  the  various  states.  When  the  appropriations  to  these 
same  states  are  arranged  on  the  basis  of  per  capita  of  population, 
it  is  found,  as  maybe  seen  in  Table  58  (page  167),  that  Pennsylvania 
granted  in  the  year  1920  but  $0.25  per  capita  for  higher  education. 
Only  one  state,  that  of  New  York,  which  appropriated  only  for 
agriculture  and  forestry,  granted  a  lower  amount  than  did  this 
state.  Minnesota  and  Iowa  both  grant  almost  three  times  as 
much.  Using  one-half  the  appropriation  for  the  biennium  1921-23 
instead  of  data  for  the  year  1920  it  is  found  that  the  amount  per 
capita  in  Pennsylvania  is  $0.29.  This  does  not  change  the  rank 
of  this  state  in  this  particular. 

In  Table  59  (page  167)  is  given  the  percent  of  the  total  income 
of  the  inhabitants  of  the  various  states  for  the  year  1919  that  was 
appropriated  for  higher  education  in  the  year  1920,  The  rank  of 
the  states  in  this  particular  is  very  similar  to  that  in  the  previous 
table.  It  shows  that  Pennsylvania  has  made  a  very  small  con- 
tribution to  the  support  of  higher  education  as  compared  v/ith 
other  representative  states  in  the  Union. 

Directing  attention  now  only  to  institutions  of  "Agriculture  and 
Mechanic  Arts,"  it  may  be  seen  by  referring  to  Table  57  (page  166) 
that  in  absolute  amounts  appropriated  by  national  and  state 
governments  for  these  institutions,  Pennsylvania  occupies  a 
middle  position  in  the  five  states  given  in  this  list  in  which  there 
are  separate  institutions  of  this  character.  These  institutions  in 
Indiana  and  Michigan  obtain  less  amounts  from  such  sources, 
while  those  in  New  York  and  Iowa  more  than  the  Pennsylvania 
State  College,  The  appropriations  by  the  Legislatures  separate 
from  those  granted  by  the  Congress  are  given  in  Table  60  (page 
167),  The  amounts  per  capita  of  population  are  also  given  in 
the  table. 

These  data  taken  together  clearly  show  that  the  Legislature  of 
the  state  would  be  warranted  in  granting  considerable  increase 
to  the  Pennsylvania  State  College  and  to  each  of  the  two  Univer- 
sities. While  Pennsylvania  occupies  a  more  favorable  position 
than  other  states  as  regards  its  appropriations  for  the  Pennsylvania 


169 

State  College  than  for  the  other  two  institutions,  it  must  be 
remembered  that  the  state  has  undertaken  a  larger  proportion  of 
the  burden  of  the  support  of  this  institution  than  it  has  for  either 
of  the  other  two. 

Another  matter  that  must  be  borne  in  mind  is  that  practically 
all  of  these  appropriations  in  Pennsylvania  were  for  current 
expenses,  while  portions  of  the  appropriations  in  other  states  were 
for  the  erection  of  buildings  and  other  capital  outlays,  the  exact 
portion  of  which  it  has  been  impossible  to  determine.  It  is 
undoubtedly  true  that  in  order  to  insure  the  continuance  of  the 
high  standing  of  higher  educational  institutions  in  this  state  large 
outlays  will  be  required  for  better  equipment  and  for  the  increase 
of  the  school  plants  to  accommodate  a  number  of  the  students  who 
desire  to  attend.  It  is  also  just  as  necessary  that  increased  income 
be  received  in  order  to  adequately  compensate  professors  and 
instructors  and  to  encourage  research  in  these  schools. 

While  the  amount  of  the  appropriations  for  permanent  improve- 
ments should  depend,  more  than  in  the  case  of  current  expenses, 
upon  the  amount  of  control  that  the  state  expects  in  the  future  to 
exercise  over  the  respective  institutions,  and  while  the  amounts  for 
each  of  these  purposes  would  naturally  depend  upon  the  wisdom 
of  the  plans  proposed  by  each  of  these  respective  institutions,  it 
seems  to  be  clearly  established  that  the  Legislature  would  be 
making  no  mistake  in  greatly  increasing  the  appropriations  to  all 
of  them  for  both  classes  of  expenditures. 


CHAPTER  V. 

Department  of  Public  Instruction. 

In  Pennsylvania  as  in  many  other  states  of  the  Union  the  first 
Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  was  some  other  officer  of 
the  state  delegated  to  gather  information  and  statistics  relative 
to  the  public  schools  as  they  were  carried  on  in  the  various  school 
districts.  When  the  educational  functions  were  first  given  to  a 
separate  officer,  little  real  responsibility  was  conferred.  His 
chief  duties  were  to  gather  statistics  and  information,  generally, 
relative  to  the  public  schools,  to  advise  local  school  districts  as 
to  proper  legal  procedure,  as  to  good  school  practice,  to  create 
favorable  public  sentiment  and  to  promote  the  efficiency  of  public 
education  through  public  addresses  and  in  such  other  ways  as 
opportunity  afforded,  and  to  advise  the  Legislature  from  time  to 
time  as  to  what  was  best  for  the  interest  of  the  schools. 

As  the  efficiency  of  education  advanced  in  the  more  progressive 
communities  and  as  higher  standards  of  what  constitutes  good 
education  were  expected  by  the  more  intelligent  people  in  all 
school  districts  throughout  the  state,  laws  were  passed  by  the 
Legislature  which  not  only  required  all  communities  to  conduct 
their  schools  in  accordance  with  the  higher  standards  but  also 
increased  the  functions  of  the  State  Superintendent  of  Public 
Instruction  and  caused  his  office  to  participate  in  one  way  or 
another  in  the  securing  of  better  conditions.  The  legislation  in 
this  state  relative  to  plans  for  school  buildings,  certification  of 
teachers  and  the  enforcement  of  the  compulsory  education  laws 
are  examples.  In  most  states  of  the  Union  he  is  authorized  to 
withhold  state  funds  unless  full  compliance  was  made  with  the 
laws  of  the  state. 

The  Department  of  Public  Instruction  in  Pennsylvania  has 
passed  through  a  similar  evolution.  In  endeavoring  to  pass  judg- 
ment upon  the  wisdom  of  the  appropriation  now  made  to  support 
it  the  author  is  compelled  to  rely  upon  such  evidence  as  is  available 
in  the  short  time  that  could  be  given  to  the  study.  The  facts  are 
submitted  as  found  together  with  such  inference  as  it  is  believed 

170 


171 

may  fairly  be  drawn  from  them.  There  are,  however,  certain 
statements  that  are  not  supported  by  statistical  material,  but 
which  are  based  upon  many  observations  of  this  office  with  a 
background  of  impressions  gained  in  years  past  from  visits  made 
to  over  twenty  other  like  offices  in  other  states.  Taken  all  in  all 
they  represent  the  author's  best  judgment  as  to  the  State  Depart- 
ment of  Public  Instruction  as  now  conducted  in  this  state  in  the 
light  of  the  available  facts  as  herein  presented. 

The  new  legislation  referred  to  above  and  the  increasing  desire 
of  school  districts  for  the  services  of  well -qualified  persons  to 
advise  them,  together  with  the  great  development  in  vocational 
education  already  brought  about  by  the  passage  of  the  Smith- 
Hughes  Act  started  a  great  increase,  beginning  about  15  years  ago, 
in  the  staffs  of  the  State  Education  Offices  throughout  the  country. 
The  statistics  relative  to  the  number  of  professional  officers, 
clerks  and  stenographers  employed  in  the  State  Education  Office 
of  Pennsylvania  and  in  the  other  states  of  the  Union  during  the 
past  twenty  years  is  not  available  in  such  form  as  to  make  exact 
comparison  possible.  The  reports  of  the  State  Superintendent  of 
Public  Instruction  of  Pennsylvania  for  various  years  during 
this  period  show  the  number  of  persons  employed,  as  follows: 

TABLE  61. 

Number  of  Professional  and  Clerical  Employees  in  Office  of 
THE  State  Department  of  Public  Instruction  of  Pennsylvania.* 


YEAR 

Professional 
officers 

Clerks  and 
stenographers 

1901 

3 

3 

5 

10 

15 

18 

5 

1906 

1909 

6 
6 

1912 

7 

1916 

14 

1918 

15 

•Reports  of  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction. 


The  Educational  Directory  published  by  the  United  States 
Bureau  of  Education  contains  the  names  and  positions  of  those 
persons  whom  the  State  Education  Offices  in  the  various  states 
sent  in  to  the  Bureau  from  time  to  time  as  constituting  the  heads 
of  the  various  departments  and  their  chief  assistants  in  addition 
to  the  superintendents  and  deputies,  and  it  is  the  only  general 


172 

source  presenting  such  data  for  all  the  states.  The  data  given  in 
these  directories  have  been  tabulated  in  Table  62.  It  will  be 
noticed  that  the  figures  for  Pennsylvania  in  Table  61  (page  171) 
are  larger  than  those  given  in  Table  62.  This  shows  a  tendency, 
which  no  doubt  was  obsei-ved  in  many  of  the  states,  not  to  report 
to  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Education  the  names  of  all  persons 
who  might  properly  be  considered  as  members  of  the  professional 
staff.  The  differences  for  the  year  1920-21  between  this  table 
and  the  one  to  follow  also  confirm  this  observation. 


TABLE  62. 
Professional  Staffs  of  State  Departments.* 


STATE  departments 

1913 

1915-16 

1917-18 

1919-20 

1920-21 

1921-22 

3 
9 
2 
5 
19 
2 
5 
7 
6 
3 
2 
1 

9 

11 
4 
5 

19 
5 
6 

10 
7 
4 

16 
5 

9 

17 
4 
5 

17 
5 
6 

11 
7 
4 

19 
5 

9 
23 
11 

5 
17 

9 

7 
15 
10 

5 
21 

9 

28 
29 
14 
19 
18 

9 
16 
11 
10 

6 
19 
14 

71 

31 

13 

20 

19 

11 

25 

Ohio               

16 

12 

15 

21 

16 

•Based  on  Educational  Directories. 

Table  62  indicates  that  in  states  other  than  Pennsylvania,  New 
Jersey  and  New  York  there  was  a  tendency  to  increase  State  Edu- 
cation Office  staffs  during  this  decade,  but  at  the  same  time  the 
tendency  was  held  in  check  by  the  World  War. 

A  natural  inference  from  the  figures  presented  in  Table  62 
showing  a  large  increase  in  Pennsylvania's  education  office  in 
1920-21  and  1921-22  over  previous  years  would  be  that  this 
increase  was  too  large.  In  order  to  test  this  out  Table  63 
(page  173)  has  been  prepared.  It  happens  that  for  the  year  1920 
the  Bureau  of  Education  published  a  complete  list  of  all  the 
persons  employed  in  the  State  Education  Offices  throughout  the 
country.  These  persons  have  been  classified  into  two  large  divi- 
sions— ^professional  and  clerical,  excluding  librarians,  laborers  and 
persons  employed  in  all  other  work  which  does  not  ordinarily 
belong  to  a  State  Education  Office,  In  this  table  there  is  also  given 
for  each  state  the  number  of  pupils  enrolled  in  the  public  schools  for 


173 


< 


z 
:^ 

« 
H 

Q 

H 
H 

<5: 

H 

GO 

o 

CO 

[^ 

<< 
t-> 
02 


1    93 

"•2 

r-KM 

1  to 

1 
1 

1 
\^\ 
°il 
51 

1 

o 

.E 

c 

§ 

I  1               "^ 
rHOS     1    O     1                lO 

II  i\ 

1            II                        1 

'o 

1             1               -\ 

moo   1  .-1    1          n   \ 

r-1,-1         CO                       t>         (M 

1    1     si" 
1    1       1 

« 

s 

0) 

c 

I  II        1 

II  SI 

"  r  1   s  r 
1  1     1 

O 

1  II     1 

OiOO    1   t:-   II             i-<    1 

In       >o  1 

1    1       1 

CJ 

Z  « 

o 

1      "1 

^00        CJ                   CO    1 
W             <N                   '^        00 

1         ^\ 
1           1 

•a 

c 
a 

1        1          ^ 

1                     -^ 

mt-    1  CO                00       to 

1       1          M 

1    I 

1    1        1 

^Tf   1  in              00   1 

m  00    1   CO                   CO        CJ 
-ti-l    1   CO                       -   1 

1     1      :i\ 
1    1        1 

Z^ 

1           1 

1                <^  1 
o«o  I  to            CO  1 
Ni-i      eo              t-   1  t- 

SI 

1 

C  3 

1       1 

■o>eo      o              •»)■   1 
loco      oi               00   1  r-l 

1                   ''"l 
1                         1 

1 

cun    1  ■o}' 
cot-   1  »-i 

CO 

o>      eo 
in 

P-. 

UOO    1  ifl 

r 

1  1 

t- 

t-      in 

CJ 

o 

; 

"a 

2    4 

1 
1 
1 

c 

t- 
\ 

^1  ': 

111 

c 

CO 

174 

the  year  1920,  the  latest  year  for  which  data  were  available,  for 
each  professional  staff  officer.  In  the  next  line  are  found  figures 
giving  the  rank  of  each  of  these  states  beginning  with  the  state 
that  has  the  least  number  of  pupils  for  each  staff  officer.  These 
figures  show  that  Pennsylvania,  which  has  one  professional  staff 
officer  in  its  state  office  for  every  25,000  pupils,  has  alarger  number 
of  pupils  for  each  such  officer  than  four  other  states — Connecticut, 
New  York,  Massachusetts  and  Wisconsin — all  of  which  states 
rank  high  educationally,  and  that  there  are  seven  states  which 
are  not  so  well  supplied  with  such  professional  advice.  The 
differences  between  Pennsylvania  and  the  three  states  which  are 
next  below  her — Maryland,  New  Jersey  and  North  Carolina — are 
comparatively  small,  and  so  on  the  whole  Pennsylvania  may  be 
said  to  lie  in  the  median  group.  From  this  the  conclusion  is  fairly 
drawn  that  the  number  of  such  professional  officers  is  not  too  large 
ba^ed  upon  present  practice  in  other  states. 


175 

Salaries  Paid  Professional  Staff. 

According  to  data  furnished  by  the  State  Superintendent  of 
Public  Instruction  in  October,  1922,  there  were  72  such  staff 
officers.  These  were  distributed  among  the  various  bureaus 
as  shown  in  Table  64.  The  salary  of  the  State  Superinten- 
dent is  $12,000  a  year,  the  first  deputy  $7,500,  the  second 
deputy  $6,000.  The  salaries  of  the  directors  of  the  various 
bureaus  range  from  $5,000  to  $6,000,  and  of  their  assistants  from 
$2,500  to  $5,000.  Besides  those  in  the  administrative  bureaus 
there  are  certain  specialists  most  of  whom  are  directors  of  special 
school  subjects  whose  salaries  range  from  $4,000  to  $7,000.  There 
are  also  certain  persons  acting  in  what  might  be  called  field  work, 
of  whom  there  are  two  classes,  the  supervisors  of  Agriculture  and 
of  Home  Economics,  who  receive  from  $1,800  to  $3,000  a  year, 
and  directors  and  assistant  directors  in  Extension  and  Americani- 
zation work  whose  salaries  range  from  $2,500  to  $5,000. 

TABLE  64. 

Classification  of  the  "Staff"  of  the  Office  of  the 
State  Department  of  Public  Instruction,  1922. 

Superintendent 1 

Deputy  superintendent 2 

Assistant  superintendent  (law) 1 

Administration 3 

Attendance 5 

Health  education 7 

Rural  education 4 

Subject  directors 14 

School  buildings 4 

Special  education 3 

Teacher  bureau 3 

Vocational  education 19 

Americanization 6 

Total 72 


176 


w 
a 

O 
o 

<! 

w 

H 
H 


H 

O 

>-] 

Oh 
S 

o 

55 

M 

a 

O 

Pi 
Ph 


PLh 

o 


,  « 

1 
1  o 

oo 

1  o 

o  ^ 

"is 

1°. 

OI> 

U  o 

1  I'' 

CO  N 

1  «* 

1 

a 

m 

o 

OUl 

c 

o 

tan 

o 

o 

00-* 

« 

Ifl 

«co 

1 

J 

m 

o 

•o 

'o 

o 

•M 

_c 

1  '■''- 

•■^ 

c- 

m 

*"* 

»» 

si 

1 

1  o 

OO 

c 

1  o 

0-* 

:3 

1  ■= 

TT  Tf 

1 

C 

IS 

1 

Nrt 

o 

OO 

2 

o 

OOO 

!S 

o 

iniO 

O 

MN 

cd 

ja  fl 

o 

la 

o 

« 

ol 

o 

lO 

^6 

N 

< 

H 

•o 

M 

c 

o 

OiO 

_a 

o 

0-" 

">. 

o 

ON 

C3 

oo 

to-* 

S 

*» 

■*- 

o 

oo 

^•2 

"  o 

o 

oc- 

o 

OU2 

:z:>- 

o 

toei 

>^ 

o 

OiO 

5    V 

o 

ot> 

o 

OOO 

zl 

o" 

lOlN 

■-» 

»» 

6 

o 

o 

^  li 

o 

o 

C   3 

o 

o 

c.y 

o  -S 

a> 

n 

o 

««• 

ii 

o 

o  o 

o 

OtC 

la 

o  w 

lOM 

"i.s 

o 

oo 

o 

vno 

-  c 

o 

C~  lO 

£> 

M 

toco 

(D    "^ 

b 

v> 

^:  ;■ 

H 

M 

■u 

< 

> 

1— < 

Pi 
< 

S 
o 

C 
0) 

c  > 

■d    . 

II 

< 

w 

'§3  S- 
3    01    M 

"3 

3  m 

w  S 

o 

23  m 


177 

There  are  two  points  of  view  from  which  the  question  of  the 
amounts  of  salaries  paid  the  members  of  the  Department  of 
Public  Instruction  can  be  approached.  The  first  is  that  of  salaries 
paid  in  other  State  Education  Offices;  the  second  is  that  of  the 
salaries  paid  the  various  members  of  the  staff  before  entering  this 
service,  and  the  salaries  paid  certain  members  who  have  recently 
left  the  state  office.  The  first  method,  which  may  be  called  the 
comparative  method,  is  as  a  rule  inferior  to  the  intensive  method, 
which  inquires  into  all  of  the  facts  in  a  given  situation  rather  than 
the  one  element  which  is  emphasized  and  brought  out  in  the  com- 
parative method.  The  latest  comparative  statistics  are  those 
published  in  the  Bulletin  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Education 
for  1920  giving  data  for  the  year  1920-21;  this  is  presented  in  Table 
65  (page  176).  According  to  this  table  the  salaries  of  the  superin- 
tendent and  the  average  salary  of  the  deputy  superintendents  were 
higher  than  those  of  corresponding  officers  in  other  states.  Since 
that  date,  however,  salaries  in  certain  other  states  have  been 
increased  while  those  in  Pennsylvania  have  remained  the  same. 
The  Commissioner  of  the  State  of  New  York  is  now  receiving 
$12,000  a  year.  In  the  average  salaries  of  professional  officers 
other  than  those  just  mentioned,  Pennsylvania  ranks  high  but  is 
not  the  highest.  It  is  one  of  a  group  of  four  states  in  which  the 
averages  are  between  $3,400  and  $3,500. 

In  order  to  make  a  more  intensive  study  of  this  question,  each 
member  of  the  professional  staff  was  asked  to  give  confidentially 
his  salary  and  other  professional  income  prior  to  taking  his  present 
position.  It  was  necessary  to  include  professional  income  by 
reason  of  the  fact  that  every  member  of  the  State  Education  Office 
is  prohibited  from  accepting  fees  for  professional  services  rendered 
within  the  state.  Each  person  was  also  asked  to  give  such  data 
as  he  cared  to  give  regarding  comparative  cost  of  living  in  Harris- 
burg  and  in  his  former  residence  and  also  the  salaries  of  any  other 
positions  which  he  had  been  offered  since  joining  the  education 
office  staff.  Information  was  also  sought  regarding  the  salaries 
now  paid  certain  former  members  of  the  staff  who  have  accepted 
other  positions. 

This  information  cannot,  of  course,  be  published  because  of  its 
confidential  nature.  It  is  believed,  however,  that  a  careful  perusal 
upon  the  part  of  any  unprejudiced  person  would  lead  to  the  con- 


178 

elusion  that  the  salaries  paid  those  who  have  recently  entered  the 
State  Department  of  Public  Instruction  were  no  higher  than  it 
was  necessary  to  pay  them  in  order  to  secure  their  services.  It 
was  the  policy  of  the  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction,  in 
which  he  was  warmly  supported  by  the  Governor  and  by  all  per- 
sons interested  in  the  recent  educational  movement  in  this  state, 
to  get  only  men  and  women  of  the  highest  ability  for  these  posi- 
tions. The  evidence  presented  goes  to  show  that  in  order  to  secure 
persons  of  superior  qualifications  it  was  necessary  to  pay  them  the 
salaries  they  are  now  receiving.  In  this  connection  it  is  well  to 
remember  that  these  persons  were  employed  at  a  time  when  salar- 
ies were  advancing,  which  advance  has  been  sustained,  whereas 
persons  in  other  State  Education  Offices  entered  when  salaries  were 
lower,  and  have  remained  at  those  salaries,  possibly  because  it  is 
frequently  difficult  for  persons  in  such  positions  to  obtain  positions 
in  a  local  school  system,  and  also,  in  many  cases  in  other  states, 
because  their  salaries  are  fixed  by  statute. 

A  still  more  important  fact  to  be  remembered  about  these 
salaries  is  that  all  of  the  staff  are  compelled  to  work  eleven  months 
in  these  positions  instead  of  nine  or  ten  months  as  in  the  public 
schools  and  are  not  allowed  to  accept  fees  for  any  kind  of  educa- 
tional service  within  the  state.  In  fact  a  number  of  them  have  been 
compelled  to  give  up  contracts  for  the  preparation  of  books  for 
publication.  Another  consideration  is  the  fact  that  costs  of  living 
in  Harrisburg  are  greater  than  in  places  where  some  of  these 
persons  lived  before.  While  some  of  the  members  of  the  staff  had 
their  salaries  increased  after  first  entering,  as  was  also  true  of  some 
of  the  former  members  on  the  staff  in  the  previous  administration, 
it  was  not  fair  that  they  should  continue  on  at  the  original  salaries 
when  persons  coming  into  the  office  more  recently  were  paid  higher 
salaries  for  doing  the  same  quality  of  work,  it  having  been  found 
necessary  to  raise  the  scale  of  salaries  in  order  to  get  persons  of  the 
highest  degree  of  merit. 

Another  factor  which  has  significance  in  this  connection  is  that 
a  goodly  number  of  persons  refused  to  accept  positions  in  the  State 
Education  Office  at  salaries  as  high  as  those  now  paid.  Eight  mem- 
bers of  the  professional  staff  have  left  the  Department  within  the 
past  year  or  two,  all  of  them  either  at  increased  salaries  or  with 
opportunities  to  carry  on  outside  work  which  would  considerably 


179 

increase  their  income.  The  fact  that  12  percent  of  the  persons 
employed  have  resigned  in  order  to  promote  their  best  interests 
would  clearly  indicate  that  in  order  to  retain  those  who  remain  the 
salaries  now  paid  are  necessary.  Twenty  persons  filling  clerical  or 
stenographic  positions  have  gone  into  other  departments  of  the 
state  government  at  increased  salaries,  and  in  order  to  retain  ten 
others  it  was  necessary  to  increase  their  salaries. 

All  of  this  evidence  taken  together  seems  to  warrant  the  statement 
that  the  salaries  are  no  higher  than  is  necessary  to  secure  and  hold 
men  and  women  of  the  high  qualifications  that  such  positions  de- 
mand in  order  to  promote  the  highest  efficiency  in  the  schools  of  the 
state. 

Expenses  of  the  Department. 

The  expenses  of  the  State  Department  of  Public  Instruction  for 
the  fiscal  year  ending  May  31,  1922,  are  shown  in  Table  66  (page 
180).  These  figures  have  been  obtained  from  the  account  books 
kept  in  the  Department  and  are  classified  in  accordance  with  the 
plan  used  in  its  accounting  system.  There  are  excluded  from  this 
table  such  bureaus  as  are  not  ordinarily  included  in  a  State  Educa- 
tion Office.  This  is  necessary  in  order  to  make  the  amounts  com- 
parable with  the  expenses  of  similar  offices  in  other  states.  The 
bureaus  and  appropriations  that  have  been  excluded  are  those  of 
Professional  Education,  Medical  Education  and  Licensure,  Dental 
Council,  Midwifery,  Blind  Babies,  Blind  Students,  Pennsylvania 
School  Journal  and  Com  Planter  Indians.  This  table  omits  also 
the  expenses  of  certain  forms  of  local  service  conducted  through 
the  Bureau  of  Vocational  Education,  such  as  county  supervision 
of  Agriculture  and  Home  Economics.  The  table  includes  the 
expenses  of  carrying  on  the  Philadelphia  Survey  and  of  conferences 
of  local  school  officers  held  at  the  Department;  the  former  because 
it  was  a  service  rendered  for  the  most  part  by  those  employed  in 
the  Department  and  the  latter  because  the  advice  obtained  was 
used  in  the  formation  of  the  policies  of  the  Department. 

The  expenses  are  apportioned  among  the  various  bureaus  in 
order  that  those  who  care  to  do  so  may  compare  the  expenses  with 
the  amount  of  service  rendered  by  each  of  the  bureaus  and  also 
with  the  number  of  professional  officers  employed  in  each  as  given 
in  Table  64  (page  175). 


180 


TABLE  66. 

Annual  Expense  of  Various  Bureaus  and  Divisions  of  Office 

OF  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction 

1921-22. 


SALARIES 

Traveling 
Expense 

OFFICES 

Staff 

Clerks. 
Stenogra- 
phers, 
Janitors 

Total 

Grand 
Total 

$12,000.00 

7,500.00 

6,000.00 

1,975.76 

13,416.42 

20,499.60 

27,199.68 

20,999.76 

47,707.49 

13,999.92 

11,374.84 

13,599.84 

82,360.82 

25,945.38 

$  7,387,50 
1-    2,524.98 
1,437.43 
35,709.95 
5,899.68 
2,052.50 
2,400.00 

■ '^i^ooioo 

1,099.92 

16,984.35 

9,333.06 

3,450.00 

$19,387,50 
16,024.98 
3,413.19 
49,126.37 
26,399.28 
29,252.18 
23,399.76 
47,707.49 
16,399.92 
12,474.76 
30,584.19 
91,693.86 

29,395.38 

$7,937.45 
1,022.17 

$27,324.95 

Deputy  Supt.  1st 

Deputy  Supt.  2nd 

17,047.15 

Asst.  Supt.  (Law) 

3,413,19 

Administration 

Attendance 

1,244.67 
5,105.00 
6,271.52 
3,923.29 
8,112.29 
1,358.36 
1,340.73 
1,516.56 
15,077.98 

1,573.29 

50,371.04 
31,504.28 
35,523.70 

27,323.05 

55,819.78 

School  Buildings 

17,758.28 
13,815.49 

Teacher  Bureau 

Vocational  Education 

Extension  and  Americaniza- 

32,100.75 
106,771.84 

30,968.67 

2,319.75 

Survevs 

. .    11,304.80 

1,598.31 

Express,  Postage,  Stamps .  .  . 

10,379.02 

1,312.14 

Total 

304,579.51 

90,679.35 

395,258.86 

54,483.31 

476,656.19 

TABLE  67. 

Annual  Total  Expense  and  Total  Expense  per  Capita  of  the 

Offices  of  State  Superintendents  of  Public 

Instruction  of  Various  States. 


STATE 

Total  expense 

Expense 
per  capita 

Ohio 

$100,690.00 
221,270.00 
116,515.00 
152,535.00 
476,656.19 
182,590.00 
311,504.36 
208,110.00 
233,025.00 
519,050.00 

$.0175 

.0341 

Indiana 

Michigan 

.0397 
.0416 
.0546 

.0579 

Massachusetts 

.0809 
.0874 

Wisconsin 

Connecticut 

.0886 
.137 

181 

Although  it  is  impossible  to  compare  expenses  in  detail  of  the 
State  Education  Office  of  Pennsylvania  with  those  of  other  states 
we  are  able  to  offer  here  through  the  courtesy  of  the  National 
Finance  Inquiry  Commission,  comparative  date  relative  to  the 
total  expenses  of  such  offices  during  the  past  fiscal  year  in  each  of 
certain  representative  northern  states.  These  data  were  obtained 
through  personal  inquiries  in  accordance  with  a  uniform  method; 
the  data  are  therefore  reliable  and  accurate,  and  as  exactly  com- 
parable with  the  data  for  Pennsylvania  as  present  conditions  rela- 
tive to  budgeting,  appropriating  and  accounting  make  possible. 
There  are  slight  discrepancies,  amounting  to  fractions  of  cents,  in 
our  computations  of  the  expenses  of  Pennsylvania  with  those  of  the 
National  Finance  Inquiry  Commission  that  can  be  accounted  for 
on  the  ground  of  difference  of  judgment  as  to  including  or  excluding 
certain  appropriations.  Our  computations  were  made  before  we 
received  the  figures  from  the  National  Finance  Inquiry  Com- 
mission. 

Table  67  (page  180)  shows  the  total  expenses  of  each  State 
Education  Office  together  with  the  expenses  per  capita  of  popula- 
tion of  such  offices.  The  data  for  the  states  other  than  Pennsyl- 
vania represent  the  appropriations  made  for  the  year.  These  figures 
were  used  by  the  Commission  inasmuch  as  it  seemed  certain  that 
the  full  appropriations  would  be  employed.  The  conclusion  to  be 
drawn  from  this  table  is  that,  notwithstanding  that  the  expenses  of 
Pennsylvania's  Department  of  Public  Instruction  are  large,  they  are 
not  so  much  per  capita  of  population  as  in  the  majority  of  the  typical 
states  chosen  for  comparison.  This  is  brought  out  more  clearly  in 
Diagram  6.  There  are  six  of  the  twelve  states  which  expend  larger 
amounts  per  capita  than  does  Pennsylvania. 


182 


2 

o 

i 

D 

a 


cog 

2 

o< 

Oi 

a 
a 

< 

CO 


Diagram  6. — Expense  per  Capita  of  Offices  of  State  Superintendents 

OF  Public  Instruction,  1921-22.    (By  Courtesy  of  The 

Educational  Finance  Inquiry.) 


183 


TABLE  67A. 
State  Appropriations  for  Education. 


STATE 

Total  Appropriations 

Education  Office  Costs 

Education 
Office  Coste 
to  Total  Ap- 
propriations 

Per  Capita 

Per  Pupil 

Per  Capita 

Per  Pupil 

Ratio 

Ohio 

$0,560 
1.580 
1.670 
1.673 
1.761 
2.037* 
2.479 
3.501 
3.901 
3.740 
4.977 

$3,159 

6.896 

8.488 

8.934 

9.483 

12.677* 

12.883 

16.530 

19.830 

20.923 

26.537 

$0,017 
0.034 
0.040 
0.137 
0.051 
0.081* 
0.089 
0.087 
0.041 
0.098 
0.058 

$0,099 
0.184 
0.202 
0.730 
0.275 
0.503 
0.460 
0.412 
0.216 
0.549 
0.309* 

$0,031 

0.027* 

0.024 

0.082 

0.029 

0.040 

0.036 

0.025 

0.011 

0.027* 

0.012 

2.534 

13.304 

0.067 

0.358 

0.031 

*The  starred  amounts  are  the  medians — that  is,  in  each  column  there  are  as  many  amounts 
less,  as  there  are  amounts  greater,  than  the  one  starred. 

Another  Table,  Table  67A,  furnished  by  the  Commission 
gives  in  addition  to  the  expense  per  capita,  certain  other 
unit  costs  which  are  of  considerable  value  in  passing  judgment 
upon  the  expenses  of  the  state  office.  This  shows  the  costs  per 
capita  and  per  pupil  of  the  total  appropriations  made  to  public 
education  in  the  entire  state,  while  the  next  two  columns  show  the 
same  unit  costs  of  the  administration  of  these  appropriations 
through  the  State  Education  Office.  The  last  column  shows  the 
ratio  of  the  education  office  costs  to  total  appropriations.  It  is 
well  in  passing  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  total  appro- 
priations for  education  in  Pennsylvania  were  not  so  high  per 
capita  or  per  pupil  as  in  the  majority  of  the  states.  Speaking  now 
of  the  last  column  it  is  fair  to  assume  that  the  magnitude  of  the 
expenses  of  a  public  education  office  is  somewhat  in  proportion  to 
the  appropriations  made  for  education;  therefore,  the  appropria- 
tions made  for  the  State  Education  Office  should  be  fairly  com- 
mensurate with  the  appropriations  for  education.  Judging  Penn- 
sylvania from  this  point  of  view  it  is  seen  that,  while  in  appropria- 
tions both  per  capita  and  per  pupil  she  ranks  fifth  among  the 
twelve  representative  states  reported,  that  in  the  percent  to 
appropriations  expended  for  administration  it  ranks  seventh.  The 
validity  of  this  figure  depends  upon  the  amount  of  the  appropria- 
tions.   Since  the  appropriations  were  below  the  norm  we  should 


184 


Diagram  7. — Expense  per  Pupil  of  Offices  of  State  Superintendents 

OF  Public  Instruction,  1921-22.   (By  Courtesy  of  The 

Educational  Finance  Inquiry.) 


185 

expect  an  office  of  normal  size  on  the  basis  of  number  of  pupils  to 
have  a  high  ratio.  A  much  better  measure  of  the  rightfulness  of 
the  expenses  of  the  State  Education  Office  is  that  furnished  in  the 
expense  per  capita  population  spoken  of  above  and  in  the  expense 
per  pupil.  In  this  respect  Pennsylvania  is  again  found  to  rank 
below  the  median,  being  fifth  out  of  the  twelve  states.  Diagram 
7  serves  to  bring  this  relationship  out  more  clearly. 

In  concluding  this  section  upon  the  total  expenses  of  the  State 
Department  of  Public  Instruction  it  is  evident  that  the  expenses 
of  the  office  of  the  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction 
under  Doctor  Finegan's  administration  have  been  as  near  the 
norm  established  by  practice  of  representative  states  as  could 
reasonably  be  expected. 

What  Has  the  State  Department  of  Public 
Instruction  Accomplished  ? 

Having  shown  that  the  number  of  men  and  women  upon  the 
professional  staff  of  the  State  Department  of  Public  Instruction  is 
no  larger  than  the  size  of  the  state  school  system  demands,  and 
having  justified  the  salaries  paid  them  on  the  ground  that  it  was 
impossible  to  secure  others  of  as  high  qualifications  at  lower 
salaries,  and  having  also  shown  that  the  expenses  of  the  Depart- 
ment have  been  no  higher  than  those  of  other  representative  states 
in  proportion  to  population  and  to  pupils  enrolled,  it  remains  to 
give  such  a  statement  as  conditions  permit  regarding  the  actual 
work  performed  by  the  persons  employed  in  order  to  provide  some 
basis  for  answering  the  question  whether  the  state  has  gotten  full 
return  for  the  money  expended. 

It  is  impossible  to  state  adequately  the  results  of  the  work  of 
professional  educational  offices  or  of  the  specialists  belonging  to  a 
central  office  such  as  that  of  the  State  Department  of  Public  Instruc- 
tion, not  only  because  so  much  of  what  they  do  is  intangible  in  its 
nature  but  also  because  of  the  hundreds  of  different  persons  with 
whom  they  come  in  contact  each  year,  representing  many  local 
communities  throughout  the  entire  state.  Aside  from  this  limita- 
tion is  another:  that  of  the  lack  of  space  in  such  a  brief  report  as 
this  to  tell  of  those  things  that  might  be  reported.  In  spite  of 
these  difficulties  we  shall  present  such  a  statement  of  the  work  of 


186 

each  of  the  bureaus  in  the  Department  as  is  believed  will  offer  a 
sufficient  basis  for  the  forming  of  a  satisfactory  judgment.  The 
head  of  each  bureau  in  the  Department  and  each  specialist  not 
attached  to  any  bureau  was  asked  to  prepare  a  statement  covering 
the  field  of  his  respective  activities  during  the  fiscal  year  closing 
May  31,  1922.  That  which  is  printed  herewith  is  a  digest  of  those 
statements.  In  the  making  of  these  digests  effort  was  made  to 
retain  those  elements  which  give  the  most  definite  and  concrete 
measures  of  work  performed.  The  reader  should  understand  that 
they  are  valuable  only  as  an  indication  of  the  work  actually  per- 
formed and  that  the  description  of  the  work  done  is  by  no  means 
adequate.  Another  thing  that  should  be  borne  in  mind  is  that  for 
many  of  the  bureaus  and  specialists  this  was  a  beginning  year  and 
that  much  of  their  time  was  necessarily  spent  in  getting  acquainted 
with  the  conditions  in  the  state  and  in  the  organization  of  the 
activities. 

A  Digest  of  Data  Submitted  by  Department  Heads. 

The  Administration  Bureau. — This  bureau  is  the  clearing  house  for  the 
entire  department.  It  is  charged  with  the  distribution,  apportionment,  and 
accounting  of  all  school  funds.  It  has  made  many  innovations,  such  as  estab- 
lishing standard  accounting  and  budgeting  systems;  the  accounts  of  the  State 
Department  of  Public  Instruction  and  of  the  Normal  Schools  have  been  gradu- 
ually  systematized,  and  unit  costs  have  been  emphasized .  It  has  made  a  begin- 
ning in  standardizing  reports,  gathering  all  forms  of  educational  data,  and 
preparing  usable  reports.  This  bureau  also  has  charge  of  the  department's 
professional  library.  It  arranges  itineraries  and  schedules  meetings  for  mem- 
bers of  the  Department.  It  directs  the  work  of  the  clerical  department;  it 
has  charge  of  all  purchases,  supervises  the  preparing  and  filing  of  reports,  and 
has  standardized  typing,  mimeographing,  and  printing  of  all  descriptions. 

Attendance  Bureau. — This  bureau  is  charged  with  the  enforcement  of  the 
compulsory  attendance  law.  The  activities  of  this  bureau  have  resulted  in  the 
establishing  of  a  state-wide  child-accounting  system;  it  has  prepared  a  bulletin 
on  attendance,  complete  teachers'  monthly  attendance  cards,  superintendents' 
summary  attendance  cards,  state  transfer  certificates,  a  comprehensive  school 
register,  and  has  revised  the  census  for  children  of  school  age. 

It  has  assisted  in  organizing  attendance  bureaus  in  three  cities,  conducted 
many  conferences,  made  over  2,000  visits  to  schools  and  summer  sessions  to 
explain  the  attendance  law,  the  use  of  new  records,  or  to  investigate  violations. 
Its  members  have  addressed  39  institutes  and  numerous  directors'  conventions. 
The  bureau  receives  from  the  various  districts  monthly  attendance  reports, 
has  issued  100,000  perfect-attendance  certificates  and  prepared  and  distributed 
as  many  as  280,000  circular  letters  on  attendance. 

The  results  of  the  work  of  this  bureau  are  quite  evident.  Attendance  through- 
out the  state  has  appreciably  improved.  The  average  daily  attendance  has 
increased  about  100,000,  the  percent  of  attendance  about  .80.  It  is  claimed  that 
approximately  $3,000,000  more  use  has  been  obtained  from  the  school  expendi- 
tures as  a  result  of  this  improved  attendance.    One  thing  is  unquestionably 


187 

evident — there  is  a  greater  respect  for  the  school  attendance  law  than  ever 
before,  not  only  among  parents  and  children,  but  among  teachers  and  school 
officials.  Standards  of  school  attendance  have  been  set  up;  age-grade  tables 
prepared;  the  use  of  a  state  transfer  certificate  is  simplifyng  transfers  and 
prevents  loss  from  non-attendance  in  case  of  removals  from  one  district  to 
another. 

Bureau  of  Health  Education. — The  work  of  this  bureau,  largely  promo- 
tional, is  educational,  rather  than  inspectional.  Its  function  is  "to  familiarize 
the  public  with  the  needs  of  health  education  and  to  co-ordinate  all  instruction 
in  hygiene  and  physiology  with  other  school  subjects,  etc."  This  bureau  has 
divisions  of  nutrition,  school  nursing,  hygiene,  and  physical  education.  Over 
300  meetings,  addresses,  demonstrations,  and  nutrition  classes  were  held  in 
one  year.  Nutrition  classes  have  been  organized  in  all  the  Normal  Schools 
and  in  75  communities,  5  Normal  Schools  have  been  led  to  employ  nutrition 
experts  for  their  dining  halls.  The  nutrition  expert  made  a  survey  of  meals 
served  in  8  Normal  Schools  and  4  colleges  and  in  the  kitchen  of  Mt.  Alto 
Sanatorium.  Health  work  has  been  organized  in  Normal  Schools  in  order  that 
the  graduates  may  be  prepared  to  carry  on  proper  health  instuction.  The  super- 
visors of  physical  education  have  visited  all  the  counties  in  the  state;  have  given 
practical  demonstrations  of  relief  exercises  to  thousands  of  teachers  and  chil- 
dren. Field  Days  have  been  organized  in  additional  counties;  conferences  were 
held  with  the  county  superintendents;  and  many  rural  schools  were  visited  and 
demonstrations  were  given. 

The  Director  and  his  assistants  visited  many  institutions;  they  have  prepared 
syllabi  in  hygiene  and  physical  education.  Great  interest  in  health  has  been 
created  among  teachers;  the  hot  lunch  idea  has  spread;  there  has  been  a  marked 
increase  in  the  number  of  special  teachers  and  a  steady  demand  has  been  made 
for  school  nurses  who  are  not  available  now.  A  beginning,  however,  has  been 
made  in  training  school  nurses. 

Bureau  of  Rural  Education. — The  function  of  this  bureau  is  largely  to 
create  a  sentiment  for  better  rural  schools,  and  to  encourage  local  districts  in 
organizing  and  fostering  consolidation.  This  has  entailed  much  study  on  the 
part  of  the  staff  and  many  conferences  with  school  officials.  The  adjustment 
of  transportation  claims  is  handled  from  this  office  and  has  resulted  in  the  sav- 
ing to  the  school  districts  in  one  year  of  $20,000.  About  two-thirds  of  the  time 
of  the  director  and  his  assistants  is  devoted  to  field  work.  There  were  fifty-six 
consolidated  schools  organized,  twenty-eight  of  which  are  not  ready  for  use; 
403  conferences  were  held,  351  sites  inspected,  181  surveys  made,  and  112 
consolidated  schools,  458  other  schools  and  86  counties  visited.  275  addresses 
were  made  before  institutes,  conventions,  community  meetings  and  joint 
meetings. 

Subject  Directors. — There  are  eight  subject  directors,  also  a  director  of 
school  libraries,  a  director  of  speech  improvement,  an  inspector  of  High  Schools, 
and  a  director  of  Junior  High  Schools,  making  a  total  of  twelve  in  directorial 
rank.  The  function  of  the  subject  directors  is  to  organize  and  direct  instruction 
in  their  field  and  to  assist  in  the  training  of  teachers  for  their  subjects  through 
co-operation  with  Normal  Schools  and  Colleges. 

In  a  general  way  all  these  directors  of  subjects  participated  in  the  Philadel- 
phia Survey.  All  of  them  began,  are  preparing,  or  have  completed  one  or  more 
syllabi;  approximately  20  in  all  have  been  prepared.  These  directors  have  held 
frequent  conferences  with  various  committees  of  teachers  in  the  preparation 
of  new  courses  of  study,  and  have  spent  much  time  in  research  and  collabora- 
tion. Many  of  them  have  been  employed,  not  only  in  their  own  special  field, 
but  in  the  investigation  of  general  school  problems,  and  have  been  sent  out  in 
the  field  to  organize,  assist,  observe  and  promote  such  programs.  It  is  esti- 
mated that  over  100  institutes  and  other  meetings  were  addressed  by  these 


188 

directors;  they  have  attended  140  educational  meetings,  parent-teacher  associa- 
tion meetings,  business  men's  meetings,  Rotary  Clubs,  etc.  Three  of  these 
taught  in  summer  sessions  in  the  state  without  additional  compensation, 
and  others  were  employed  in  organizing  extension  courses  and  professional 
courses  for  the  summer  sessions.  The  director  of  music  organized  a  School  of 
Music  for  supervisors  at  West  Chester.  This  school  attracted  not  only  315 
Pennsylvania  teachers  of  music,  but  200  from  without  the  state.  The  tuition 
from  the  latter  netted  a  profit  that  was  equal  to  the  total  expenses  of  maintain- 
ing the  director  and  his  two  assistants  for  the  year. 

The  beneficent  results  of  the  preliminary  work  of  these  subject  directors  may 
be  seen  in  the  general  toning  up  of  the  teacher-training  work  in  the  Normal 
Schools  and  Colleges,  particularly  in  such  subjects  as  music,  art,  science,  and 
English.  Clearer  objectives  are  being  set  up,  the  rank  and  file  of  the  teachers 
are  being  stimulated  by  the  new  syllabi  and  by  the  conferences  the  directors 
have  held.  Direction  is  being  given  to  instruction  especially  in  those  districts 
where  supervision  has  been  lacking.  These  directors  have  also  shared  in  the 
organization  work  connected  with  the  several  Educational  Congresses  held 
at  Harrisburg. 

School  Buildings  Bureaus.— The  School  Buildings  Bureau  is  charged  with 
the  revision  and  approval  of  all  Normal  School  and  public  school  building  plans 
in  accordance  with  law,  and  it  works  out  building  programs  for  districts  request- 
ing them;  revises  plans  so  as  to  meet  all  the  legal  requirements  and  at  the  same 
time  keeps  within  the  financial  limitations  of  districts.  Another  important  phase 
of  the  bureau's  work  is  that  it  compiles  data  bearing  on  standard  costs  of  build- 
ing materials  and  construction  so  that  these  data  may  be  available  to  the  dis- 
tricts of  the  state  gratis.  Some  of  the  work  done  by  this  bureau  the  past  year 
(1921-22)  are:  prepared  plans  for  41  situations,  costing  about  $3,000,000; 
supervised  and  revised  plans  and  specifications  for  535  new  and  rebuilt  buildings; 
prepared  100  miscellaneous  sketches;  68  standardized  plans  for  rural  school 
buildings;  and  held  954  conferences  with  school  officials.  A  survey  service  is 
maintained  which  renders  gratis  expert  service  to  school  districts  desiring 
assistance.  It  participated  in  several  large  city  surveys  and  completed  its  work 
on  the  Philadelphia  Survey. 

Since  1914  it  has  in  an  advisory  capacity  examined  plans  and  specifications 
for  2200  building  projects,  costing  approximately  $50,000,000;  it  has  saved 
rural  schools  over  $83,000  in  architects'  fees,  and  other  districts  the  sum  of 
$117,000;  it  has  passed  on  school  buildings  whose  aggregate  cost  is  $64,113,133. 
The  commercial  value  of  the  architectural  service  on  this  outlay  would  be 
$704,013,  while  the  expense  of  the  bureau  since  1914  has  been  only  $75,000. 

Bureau  of  Special  Education. — It  is  difficult  to  evaluate  the  work  of  this 
bureau  because  of  the  seriousness  of  the  problem  it  must  deal  with.  For  some 
time  its  work  will  be  promotional  in  that  school  officials  need  to  be  shown  the 
problem  of  retardation  and  the  great  financial  burden  it  entails.  This  bureau 
is  now  preparing  a  hand  book  for  special  classes  and  a  travel  exhibit.  It  has 
assisted  other  bureaus  in  preparing  a  program  of  educational  guidance  and 
assisted  in  organizing  fourteen  special  courses;  one  joint  county  school  was 
organized  but  not  started;  a  round  table  conference  was  established  in  the 
Pennsylvania  State  Education  Association  and  a  visiting  teacher  secured  for 
Rochester,  Pennsylvania. 

The  Teacher  Bureau. — This  bureau  is  charged  with  the  important  work  of 
teacher  training  and  teacher  placing.  In  this  capacity  it  exercises  supervision 
of  the  fourteen  Normal  Schools  and  issues  teachers'  certificates.  The  office 
work  of  this  bureau  is  very  heavy;  it  reports  that  it  handled  from  April  15  to 
September  1, 1921,  a  daily  average  of  461  pieces  of  incoming  and  420  of  outgoing 
mail.  The  office  maintained  a  card  index  of  every  teacher  in  the  state,  except 
in  Philadelphia  and  in  Pittsburgh.    It  has  handled  20,000  teacher  ratings  and 


189 

has  issued  22,754  certificates.  The  certificate  regulations  adopted  by  the  State 
Council  of  Education  were  prepared  by  this  bureau. 

Under  its  guidance  the  Normal  School  curricula  have  been  revised  and  pro- 
fessionalized; practice  facilities  increased  from  4436  children  to  6652;  practice 
teaching  introduced  through  co-perative  efforts  in  most  of  the  colleges;  training 
of  vocational  teachers  widened.  One  teacher-training  conference  was  held  in 
Lock  Haven  at  which  350  Normal  School  teachers  participated  The  Normal 
Schools  have  been  \asited  and  Departments  of  Education  in  colleges  observed. 
The  Normal  School  enrollment  increased  from  4117  to  5706  (est.)  1922-23. 

Members  of  the  bureau  have  delivered  129  addresses  and  attended  and  con- 
ducted numerous  conferences  at  summer  sessions  and  elsewhere  without  addi- 
tional compensation.  Correspondence  courses  have  been  organized  in  six,  and 
extension  courses  in  eleven  Normal  Schools.  Through  its  certificate  require- 
ments 30,707  teachers  attended  summer  sessions  this  past  summer,  9,150  of 
these  being  in  the  Normal  Schools  of  the  state. 

The  Placement  Service  reports  6750  teachers  registered,  758  requests  for 
teachers,  and  278  placed.  The  estimated  value  of  this  service  at  the  private- 
bureau  rate  is  $65,000,  while  the  cost  of  the  entire  bureau  is  $32,100. 

Bureau  of  Vocational  Education.— This  bureau  is  divided  into  four 
divisions — Agricultural  Education,  Industrial  Education,  Home  Economics 
Education,  and  Continuation  Schools.  It  has  the  supervision  of  the  strictly 
vocational  schools,  and  also  of  such  vocational  departments  as  are  established 
in  high  schools;  it  allocates  funds  for  the  training  of  vocational  teachers  and 
co-operates  with  the  Teacher  Bureau  in  their  training. 

The  Agricultural  Division  reports  125  centers  organized  in  vocational  agri- 
culture with  an  enrollment  of  3074  pupils,  home  gardening  on  71  acres  in  28 
cities,  with  15,000  pupils.  It  has  conducted  experiments  in  corn  growing;  has 
made  in  two  years  421  supervisory  and  175  promotional  visits,  has  planned 
and  directed  the  work  of  the  county  supervisors  and  prepared  educational 
farm  exhibits  for  the  State  Farm  Show,  besides  preparing  two  bulletins  and 
eleven  unit  courses  and  three  syllabi. 

The  Industrial  Education  Division  participated  in  the  formulation  of  the 
Program  of  Vocational  Guidance,  prepared  three  syllabi,  assisted  in  organizing 
vocational  guidance  at  various  centers,  and  took  part  in  the  Philadelphia 
Survey.  It  organized  22  vocational  industrial  schools  and  at  present  supervises 
and  visits  the  78  trade  schools  that  have  an  enrollment  of  7800  students. 

It  has  been  asserted  and  it  is  believed  that  Pennsylvania's  rank  in  industrial 
education  is  not  only  superior  to  that  of  any  other  state  in  the  Union,  but  is 
lower  in  per  capita  costs. 

The  Division  of  Home  Economics  is  so  organized  that  three-fourths  of  the 
time  of  the  director  and  his  assistants  is  spent  in  field  work.  This  division 
establishes  Home  Economics  Departments  in  schools,  and  also  directs  the 
training  of  home  economics  teachers  in  three  Normal  Schools  and  ten  colleges. 
It  has  organized  programs  for  the  county  supervisors,  who  teach  as  well  as 
supervise,  prepared  bulletins,  type  studies,  etc.,  and  has  established  a  Place- 
ment Service  to  assist  in  securing  and  placing  teachers  of  home  economics. 
Exclusive  of  Philadelphia,  there  are  in  the  state  455  schools  offering  Home 
Economic  courses,  with  766  teachers  and  47,463  pupils.  Only  266  high  schools 
out  of  725  are  represented  in  this  work.  The  possible  scope  of  this  work  may 
be  seen  when  it  is  estimated  from  census  reports  that  fully  800,000  girls  should 
pursue  this  type  of  work  in  Pennsylvania. 

The  Continuation  School  Division  administers  the  distribution  of  $138,268 
of  state  funds.  The  assistant  director  in  charge  of  continuation  schools  visited 
110  districts  with  404  teachers  and  35,331  pupils;  assisted  in  the  certification 
of  continuation  teachers;  guided  and  simplified  their  training;  prepared  a  syl- 
labus of  150  pages  and  a  bulletin  of  75  pages.  The  Assistant  Director  also 
taught  without  additional  compensation  in  the  summer  session  at  State  College. 


190 

Having  now  described  the  work  of  the  bureau  chiefs  and  also 
of  the  specialists,  as  reported  by  them,  it  remains  for  us  to  express 
a  judgment  as  to  whether  they  have  given  to  the  state  full  return. 
Direct  benefit  can  be  expressed  in  dollars  saved  by  the  amounts 
saved  local  school  districts  in  the  more  economical  erection  of 
school  buildings,  the  tuition  received  from  students  outside  the 
state  attending  the  Summer  School  of  Music  at  West  Chester,  in 
the  larger  amounts  of  products  expressed  in  days  of  education 
that  the  local  school  districts  have  produced  with  the  same  ex- 
penditure of  money  through  the  better  enforcement  of  the  com- 
pulsory education  law.  These  have  a  value  greater  than  the 
expenses  of  the  entire  department. 

The  figures  furnished  as  to  the  number  of  meetings  addressed, 
the  number  of  schools  visited,  the  number  of  letters  written,  the 
number  of  conferences  held,  indicate  that  they  have  given  their 
entire  time  to  the  work  for  which  they  were  employed.  The  quality 
of  the  service  rendered  can  better  be  inferred  possibly  from  the 
high  qualifications  of  the  men  and  women  who  form  the  profes- 
sional staff.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  have  been  so  interested  in 
their  work  that  most  of  them  have  given  many  of  their  evenings 
as  well  as  their  days  to  the  work  with  which  they  were  put  in 
charge.  This  high  quality  of  ability  combined  with  long  hours 
of  service  seems  to  warrant  the  conclusion  that  the  state  has 
received  the  benefit  of  the  best  service  obtainable  for  the  money 
expended  and  that  it  has  been  given  as  widely  throughout  the 
state  as  conditions  permitted.  It  is  believed  that  there  is  no 
State  Education  Office  in  the  Union  with  a  more  competent 
personnel  than  that  of  Pennsylvania,  nor  one  that  has  produced 
under  similar  conditions  more  direct  benefit  to  the  public  schools 
of  the  state. 

Possible  Improvements. 

There  are  practically  always  connected  with  any  office,  no 
matter  how  efficiently  conducted,  certain  weaknesses  or  short- 
comings which  should  be  corrected.  Our  own  State  Education 
Office  is  not  an  exception  in  this  respect.  Certain  of  these  will  be 
mentioned  at  this  point. 

The  Pennsylvania  State  Education  Office  has  upon  its  staff 
specialists  who  are  designated  as  directors  of  mathematics,  Eng- 


191 

lish,  science,  etc.  There  is  also  a  director  and  two  supervisors  of 
special  education,  a  director  of  junior  high  schools,  and  another 
director  of  speech  defects. 

These  specialists  are  rendering  very  valuable  service  to  the 
state  and  the  instrumentalities  for  doing  this  kind  of  work  should 
be  increased.  Should  state  Schools  of  Education  be  established  in 
the  universities,  professors  in  these  institutions  might  be  used 
to  supplement  such  efforts.  This  co-operation  between  the  State 
Office  and  the  universities  should  result  in  great  good  to  both. 
The  contacts  which  the  professors  of  the  universities  would  have 
with  the  schools  while  working  in  behalf  of  the  State  Office  would 
widen  their  views  of  educational  activities  and  thus  increase  their 
efficiency  as  teachers.  The  specialists  might  in  turn  extend  the 
courses  and  addresses  they  are  now  giving  in  universities  and 
Normal  Schools,  thus  increasing  their  professional  equipment  by 
larger  contacts  with  these  higher  institutions  and  also  rendering 
greater  service  through  the  increased  number  of  student  teachers 
brought  under  their  instruction. 

The  appropriations  for  vocational  education  in  Pennsylvania 
seem  large.  In  their  favor  it  can  be  stated  that  we  have  probably 
the  largest  state  system  of  vocational  education  in  the  United 
States  and  one  of  the  most  efficient.  Since  that  is  the  case,  it 
would  seem  as  though  the  time  was  approaching  in  which  a  larger 
proportion  of  the  expense  of  such  schools  should  be  borne  by  the 
local  communities,  inasmuch  as  it  is  the  purpose  of  such  types  of 
state  and  national  aid  to  introduce  new  forms  of  education  and  to 
help  support  them  until  such  time  as  the  local  communities  are  so 
convinced  of  their  desirability  that  they  will  continue  them  of 
their  own  effort.  The  Smith-Hughes  Act  appropriates  within 
certain  limits  an  amount  of  money  equal  to  that  furnished  by  the 
state  or  the  local  districts  or  by  the  two  combined.  The  present 
practice  in  Pennsylvania  is  for  the  local  communities  to  pay  but 
one-third,  for  the  state  to  pay  one-third,  and  the  national  govern- 
ment, one-third.  Just  how  much  may  be  saved  in  this  way  it  is 
not  possible  to  say  without  a  much  more  careful  inquiry  than  it 
has  been  possible  to  make. 

It  is  a  question  whether  the  fullest  returns  have  been  obtained 
from  the  appropriations  for  Americanization.  This  work  has 
recently  been  distributed  in  various  division  offices,  each  with  an 


192 

assistant  director  or  supervisor  in  charge.  This  type  of  work  is  new 
and  those  in  charge  are  obliged  to  feel  their  way.  It  is  believed 
that  it  would  be  possible  to  secure  a  better  co-ordination  among 
these  various  offices  and  an  exchange  of  experience  which  would  be 
helpful  to  the  work  throughout  the  state.  In  this  connection  it  is 
important  to  point  out  that  there  is  great  need  for  the  develop- 
ment of  this  work  in  this  state  because  of  the  large  number  of 
foreign  adult  illiterates  and  that  at  the  present  time  local  public 
school  systems  have  great  need  of  the  direct  assistance  that  a 
State  Office  can  give  them.  In  fact,  the  local  school  units  of  the 
state  as  now  organized  are  not  in  many  cases  suitable  territorial 
units  for  carrying  on  this  work. 

The  State  Education  Office  and  its  Relation  to  the 

Public  Schools,  Normal  Schools  and 

Higher  Educational  Institutions. 

It  is  important  in  the  granting  of  state  support  to  the  various 
branches  of  public  education  in  the  state  that  careful  consideration 
be  given  to  the  organization  of  the  boards  in  control  of  those  appro- 
priations suggested  in  previous  sections  of  this  report,  and  of  the 
relationships  of  the  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  to 
these  boards  on  the  other  hand  and  to  the  Normal  Schools,  colleges 
and  universities  on  the  other  hand. 

The  primary  functions  of  the  State  Superintendent  of  Public 
Instruction  are  concerned  with  the  public  schools  as  conducted  in 
the  local  school  districts.  This  is  the  fundamental  part  of  the 
state's  public  school  system.  In  so  far  as  the  Legislature  does  not 
determine  policies  and  methods  with  regard  to  the  state  aid  of 
local  school  districts  and  the  standards  that  should  be  maintained 
in  order  to  receive  its  benefits,  this  function  should  be  performed 
by  a  state  board  with  the  advice  and  assistance  of  the  State 
Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction.  His  own  work  should  be 
to  see  that  the  standards  prescribed  by  the  state  laws  and  the 
regulations  of  the  state  board  are  observed  in  the  local  school 
districts,  to  advise  the  Legislature  and  the  state  board  as  to  the 
conditions  in  the  public  schools  and  suggest  proper  courses  of 
action  for  them  to  take  for  their  improvement.  He  and  the 
members  of  his  staff  should  also  provide  in  every  possible  way  for 


193 

the  stimulation  of  local  interest  in  schools  and  for  the  advance- 
ment of  the  highest  possible  standards  in  them.  To  this  end,  he 
and  they  should  endeavor  to  bring  about  the  co-operation  of  all 
agencies,  educational  and  otherwise,  that  are  interested  in  the 
advancement  of  education. 

The  second  group  of  functions  of  the  State  Department  of 
Public  Instruction  is  connected  with  the  Normal  Schools  main- 
tained by  the  state.  In  addition  to  those  types  of  functions 
exercised  in  the  operation  of  the  local  elementary  and  secondary 
schools— maintenance  of  standards — reporting  to  the  Legislature, 
awakening  of  interest,  stimulation  and  practical  assistance — the 
State  Department  should  have  more  immediate  responsibility  in 
their  administration.  This  is  desirable  not  only  by  reason  of 
securing  the  fullest  co-operation  between  all  such  schools  and  the 
necessity  of  bringing  about  the  closest  possible  co-ordination  of 
effort  between  their  activities  and  the  plan  for  the  development  of 
the  public  schools,  but  also  because  of  the  importance  of  having 
a  single  executive  professional  officer  with  a  corps  of  expert 
assistants  to  assist  a  central  board  of  control  in  the  distribution  of 
the  state  funds  appropriated  for  their  support  and  in  getting  the 
fullest  returns  for  the  money  thus  expended. 

A  third  group  of  functions  belongs  to  higher  education.  While 
they  are  similar  in  kind  to  those  of  the  Normal  Schools,  yet  because 
of  the  smaller  number  of  institutions  involved  and  the  more 
specialized  type  of  management  required  it  would  hardly  be 
expected  that  they  should  be  exercised  to  the  same  degree  as  in 
the  former  class  of  institutions.  While  the  State  Superintendent 
of  Public  Instruction  might  rightfully  be  expected  to  participate 
more  directly  through  advice  given  a  lay  board  of  control  in  the 
administration  of  schools  of  education  connected  with  universities 
and  colleges  because  of  the  desirability  of  co-ordinating  their 
activities  not  only  among  themselves  but  also  with  the  public 
school  system,  nevertheless  he  should  have  some  part  in  the 
control  of  all  phases  of  state-supported  higher  education  in  order 
to  insure  beyond  doubt  that  the  educational  needs  of  the  state 
might  be  the  better  interpreted  and  the  more  fully  met. 

Finally,  the  fourth  group  of  functions  is  the  development  of  the 
fullest  co-ordination  among  all  classes  of  schools.  Without  the 
right  to  determine  finally  in  any  case  without  the  right  to  grant, 


194 

yet  with  full  opportunity  to  plan  and  to  recommend  in  any  field  to 
the  Legislature  or  to  a  legislative  board,  and  with  authority  to 
maintain  the  standards  and  to  execute  the  plans  within  the  scope 
properly  belonging  to  an  executive  officer  of  a  central  board  or 
Legislature,  he  is  thus  in  a  position  where  he  can  guide  the  develop- 
ment of  education  of  all  grades  while  the  responsibility  for  deter- 
mination of  the  policies  rests  upon  the  representatives  of  the 
people  serving  as  members  of  boards  or  in  the  Legislature  itself. 
Such  a  distribution  of  functions  between  expert  and  lay  elements 
furnishes  the  most  desirable  condition  for  the  exercise  of  leader- 
ship and  for  the  securing  of  the  strongest  and  most  consistent 
support  from  the  people  for  the  plans  adopted,  for  the  expression 
in  its  highest  form  of  the  will  of  the  people  regarding  public 
education,  and  for  securing  the  strongest  and  most  consistent 
support  of  the  plans  adopted. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

Relative  Needs. 

The  purpose  of  this  chapter  is  to  bring  together  that  which  has 
been  said  in  previous  chapters  relative  to  appropriations,  to  com- 
pare the  appropriations  of  the  present  biennium  with  those  of  the 
previous  bienniums  and  to  furnish  such  data  relative  to  amounts 
and  distributions  of  the  cost  of  education  in  other  states  as  will 
assist  in  reaching  a  judgment  regarding  appropriations  in  Penn- 
sylvania. 

The  appropriations  for  education  made  by  the  Legislature  of 
Pennsylvania  for  each  of  the  bienniums  from  1909  to  the  present  are 
given  in  tabular  form  in  Table  68  (page  196).  The  appropriations  are 
classified  according  to  the  different  types  of  schools  and  activities. 
Appropriations  closely  related  to  those  of  the  State  Superinten- 
dent's Office,  although  not  properly  a  part  thereof,  are  grouped 
under  one  head  called  "Miscellaneous."  The  total  appropriations 
for  each  group  are  shown  at  the  top  of  the  group  opposite  the 
general  title.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  appropriations  have 
greatly  increased  from  1909  to  1921.  The  appropriations  for  educa- 
tion for  the  biennium  1921-23  make  up  32.1  percent  of  the  total. 
This  percentage  is  larger  than  for  any  previous  biennium  since 
1909,  which  percent  was  practically  the  same.  It  should  be 
remembered  in  this  connection  that  interest  in  education  has 
sagged  in  this  state  during  the  past  two  decades.  When  compari- 
son is  made  with  the  practice  of  other  states  it  is  found  as  is  shown 
in  Table  11  (page  36)  that  the  median  percent  for  the  United 
States  for  the  year  1919  was  37.5  percent.  This  means  that  in 
24  states  the  appropriations  for  education  consumed  a  larger 
portion  of  the  total  appropriations  while  in  24  states  a  less  per- 
centage was  so  expended.  It  may  thus  be  concluded  that  Penn- 
sylvania with  a  percentage  of  32.1  may  increase  her  proportion  of 
total  appropriations  for  education  by  5  percent  before  reaching 
the  norm  as  determined  by  present  practice  in  other  states. 

195 


196 


o 

H 

& 

« 
o 
t^ 

ui 

z 

o 

H 

S 

Oh 
O 
» 
(3-. 
CU 
<1 

H 
H 

<: 

o 

o 

H 

P 

S 
« 

M 


■inooiooooo 


oooooooooooo 


Ol0MOt^00NU5U5r-l«>0 
rH  M -^ -^  00  rl  Tf 


OOOOOOOOOOOO 

oooooooooooo 
ocooooooooooo 

O00'^OT-<00Nt0!Ci-l«U5 
rt  M  •>f  ■*  00  rt  •>* 


ooooooooooooo 
ooooooooooooo 

ON-tfOOOOOOOOOO 

oooi-iooomotoinrH'^ON 

.-1  tH  ^C  CO  t- >-l  «  1-1 


ooooo 
ooooo 

ONtOOO 


ooooo 


ooooooo 
ooooooo 
ooooooo 

CO  ;D  O  rH  TJI  in  N 


ooooooo 


CO  to  •*  rH  Tf  lO  N 


aw  3  ^ 


M    (2>   d;    CS 

wOCm 


"HMCO-^lO 


^T3 
,     O   01 


-  5  c  M 

.  X  s  $ 

-  fcH  C  O  3 

W  <U  MO  o 


oooooo 

OOOOOON 

cno  aooiO{N 

U!)  tD  00 -^  00  *-l 


S  £  £ 


ee^ 


m2 

I-2S 
Sf  ?;  o  c  S'c 


a 


a3 

.  3  W 

M    O.     .    ° 

a3°" 
awO  . 


li- 

,  x-o  E 


S  ^2.t£33.^£.£w£G3 


—  .  0*i  m 

.2  oOS-< 

ji  I-    D    t.    0)    O   o 

<;  «  a  «  ate  a 

g  J§Ht5?WCE 

o       o 

I-]  11 N  CO  •'S' lO  O 


MSa 


o  c  -S  o 

•-   £   O   O   4" 

WhohQ 


c 

a 

E 

C 
0! 

nt 

OJ 

3 

•o 

"O 

n. 

J3 

J2 
3 

3 

C 

OS 

O 

E 

CS 

o 

197 


Q 

Q 
P 

U 

:?; 
o 
o 


tc 

ooo 

T 

c 

OC 

o 

to 

CO 

oco 

o 

oo 

o 

CO 

cr 

ooo 

cr 

o 

o_^o_ 

o 

c^ 

^ 

O 

ccoin 

^ 

c 

o^o" 

N 

Tf 

<: 

C 

0»0<M 

OC 

ino 

t- 

CO 

N 

o- 

OlOOO 

IC 

•<* 

00  «5 

0) 

00 

o 

CO 

■^ 

m" 

^ 

■"t 

t- 

OC 

V 

co 

tc 

oooootc 

c 

oo 

N 

00 

cc 

oooooir 

o 

oo 

(0 

<D 

c 

ir 

ooooom 

o 

oo 

•>* 

o 

Tf 

-     o> 

u: 

ooi  u:)  o  o  cj 

o 

o'o 

to 

o 

M 

• 

t 

«DCO(NIOIO[> 

ino 

00 

!N 

«: 

c 

•VrtNi-iooej 

«; 

05CC 

c- 

tc 

00 

M 

^ 

co 

CJ 

CO 

o 

»= 

IN 

c 

ooooo 

o 

oo 

o 

o 

OC 

o 

ooooo 

o 

oo 

o 

o 

o 

ooooo 

o 

oo 

o 

^ 

tc 

-      00 

Ifi 

toojinioo 

o 

oo 

in 

^ 

CO 

o 

•-1C0NNO 

o 

oo 

CO 

CO 

o 

in* 

Ifi 

■^r-l        eOSD 

in 

CON 

05 

N 

N 

«= 

(N 

s 

o 

O 

oo 

o 

oo 

o 

o 

«c 

o 

O 

oo 

o 

oo 

O 

o 

OC 

o 

o 

o_^o 

o 

oo 

o 

CO 

<c 

tj« 

o 

o 

oo 

in 

mo 

o 

00 

o 

<c 

«o 

oo 

e^ 

NO 

m 

o: 

t- 

00 

N 

rt  w 

CO 

coo 

^ 

rf 

N 

^ 

,H 

N 

o 

t- 

tc 

o 

o 

ooo 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

ooo 

o 

o 

o 

o 

""t 

o 

o 

o^oo 

o 

o 

o 

tc 

-     to 

lO 

o 

ooin 

t- 

t- 

o 

o- 

o- 

00 

«o 

00(M 

co 

CO 

■^ 

in 

c 

t-* 

o 

(M 

rHtflrH 

»-< 

in 

^ 

ev 

M 

M 

a 

tc 

M 

<c 

o 

o 

oo 

O 

o 

OC 

o 

o 

oo 

o 

o 

N 

o 

o 

oo 

o 

00 

If 

-      V) 

o 

o 

oo 

o 

00 

O! 

to 

to 

oo 

o 

o 

eo 

cn 

O! 

CJ 

»rH 

o 

in 

CO 

M 

*s 

M 

t- 

in 

o 

o 

o 

oo 

o 

o 

OC 

o 

o 

o 

oo 

tc 

o 

o 

o 

oo 

ir 

w 

■^ 

-       00 

in 

o" 

o" 

Ota 

t- 

0< 

t- 

to 

«D 

CO 

OI> 

co 

O' 

rH 

o 

o 

»H 

w 

o 

« 

^ 

CO 

^ 

«3 

^ 

V 

iH 

m 

e* 

_o 

i- 
c 
c 

CJ 

3 

d 

T) 

i 

> 

c 
C 

H 

o 

r 

> 

f 

c 

g 

a 

0 

b 

« 

b 
t- 
c 

1 
1 

Q 

a 

c 
■J 

> 

c 

a 

c 
a 

•G 

K 

El 

01 

0 

61 

d 

X 

W 
•o 
S  c 

eo  c 

OH 
oo  c 

c 
c 

'Z 

3 

c 

c 

s 

3 

£■ 
cr 

C 

e 
1 

£ 

c 
c 

< 

& 

o 

1.  -^ 

^  d  aj  3-^  a. 

7 

c 
o 

t 

o 

c    ..c 

9  "rt 

•a 
W 

<« 

c 

.     o 

7 
£ 
c 

"1= 

a 

X. 
bi 

3 

0 

>    £h 

c 

1 

0' 

:z 

r^  CO*  CO  •<r  in  to 

> 

1-Jnco 

K 

h 

Ph 

> 

^^ 

> 

> 

198 


pq 
< 


o 

H 

U 


o 
fa 

Q 

5 

O 
« 

z 

PM 
Q 

<! 

•z 
o 


tc 

o 

o 

o 

<o 

■=> 

o 

II 

o 

o 

o 

o 

=3 

m 

o 

lO 

U3 

CO 

o 

o 

•i         -^ 

r        '1 

r        -0 

0        -o  1     -00  1     -w     (1 

w 

•« 

■     \o 

CO 

•       CO 

•     o 

■     <=■ 

•     N   • 

<y> 

eoe 

i      .le 

•J     oe 

1        OSU 

•3       oo 

3      inco      tr-CO 

00  0 

0       OS 

OS 

CC«i 

3       OS.-<    1  Tj- 

OSrH 

t-' 

•* 

■f 

^ 

^ 

CO 

N 

«» 

00 

o 

o 

o 

to 

o 

N 

CO 

o 

U3 

M 

CO 

o 

to 

o 

\a 

CO 

N 

U3 

o 

•<t 

OS 

-0 

S           -0 

0           -0 

D           -•« 

r          -r 

1         -o>   1     -t-      II 

o 

•       CJ 

•       CO 

•     ;o 

o 

■      to    ■ 

o» 

Nr- 

•1       NO 

g      i-io 

0       Ou 

3       TfO 

IS       ION       00  to 

'^ 

<Of 

J        lO 

00 

00  ;j 

3        O 

to 

t^  f* 

N 

■f 

ei 

eo 

CJ 

«» 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

(N 

N 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

t- 

3          -0 

r>          -f 

4         -u 

3           -1- 

•<           -■*    1       -OS       II 

M 

•        lO 

•       O 

c- 

•      m 

■     o 

•     u3   •    n 

o> 

COlf 

3        O 

t~ff 

>!        COC 

3      ot- 

-      OM   1  coco      II 

'^ 

f-HC 

1        eq 

■<)• 

U3t 

-        U3 

\a 

OS-.     1 

r-T 

U3 

^ 

CJ 

w 

*♦ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

CO 

CO 

U3 

•t 

O 

O 

o 

lO 

-■»( 

t       -c 

3           -C 

3           -C 

3          -C 

3           -OS    1       -00       II 

00 

•     CO 

00 

•       O 

in 

•      o    • 

Ol 

eoo( 

J       Oi- 

■<        -"J-O 

i         IOC 

3      «3ir 

3        IMtO     1    lOr-l        II 

'-' 

.HO. 

1       C4 

•fl< 

Ol^ 

-        OS 

CO 

N^ 

o> 

CO 

^ 

n" 

•9- 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

<o 

;d 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

eo 

-« 

<        -e» 

3           -O 

s        -c 

>           -0! 

3           -OS 

OS 

c- 

•     o 

•       O 

•       lO 

t- 

•      o    • 

Ol 

iot> 

OSi- 

<     •(j'l- 

■c        «0« 

5        00« 

3        CO 

■*©3 

'-' 

MC^ 

r^ 

N 

o^ 

-     o 

lOrt 

oo" 

-* 

^ 

M 

t» 

o 

O 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

•     o 

00 

ooc 

>     o 

o 

o 

•     o 

-t£ 

-0( 

3           -C 

>       -c 

>       -1/ 

> 

-•»* 

00 

00 

■       O 

•     o 

•     o 

•     o    . 

Ol 

oo 

Tj« 

COi- 

<        t-r- 

<        USl/ 

) 

Or-I 

rH 

(N 

W0( 

>        OS 

OrH 
N 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

O 

O 

o 

o 

o 

"„ 

ooc 

o 

o 

o 

U3 

OS 

-oc 

-c- 

-■"i 

'V 

-«1 

-M 

o 

00 

>o 

•     o 

■     o 

•        lO 

t-    • 

OS 

co^ 

t-ic 

to« 

CO  to 

«>cr 
;o' 

N 

<-<oc 

■0" 

o 

o 

+J 

e 

3 

o 

c 

a 

_c 

<! 

S 

o 

J 

Q 

2 
O 

D 

■4J 

a 
§ 

c 

i 

< 

o 

J3 
W 
§ 

3 

o 

s 
< 

c 

h5 

c 

(4 

B 

S 
o 

c 

3 

o 

e 

< 

i.«l 

1 

.2 

U 

B 

C  o 

.2 

1 

"o 

3 

T3 

C4 

•2H 

a 

S 

e 
<: 

.Si 

•s 

s 

8 

3 

•v 

o  s 

<c 

^-c 

s« 

§« 

■J  = 

s^  II 

a 
a 
< 

(2; 

H 

a 
CM 

c 

3 
o 

<2 

.2 

01 

Oh 

o 

a 

u 

(1, 

a 
u 
o 

> 

J3 
t 

IS 

g 
^ 

199 

Turning  now  to  an  analysis  of  this  total  appropriation  of 
$37,834,316  it  may  be  seen  from  Table  69  that  practically  two- 
thirds  of  it  is  devoted  to  the  support  of  local  school  districts  and 
that  the  normal  schools  and  higher  educational  institutions  are 
each  given  slightly  over  one-eighth.  The  balance  amounting  to 
one-twelfth  goes  to  the  support  of  the  state  and  county  adminis- 
trative offices  and  to  vocational  education.  It  costs  practically  as 
much  to  support  the  State  Education  Office  as  is  granted  to  the 
65  counties  in  the  support  of  their  offices. 

Comparing  the  percentages  with  those  of  the  previous  biennium 
it  is  observed  that  taken  as  a  whole  the  portion  going  to  the  state 
and  county  offices  and  to  the  normal  schools  has  greatly  in- 
creased, that  the  appropriations  for  higher  educational  institu- 
tions while  irregular  have  remained  about  the  same,  and  that  the 
appropriation  going  to  the  local  school  districts  has  steadily 
decreased  from  85  percent  in  1909  to  65  percent  in  1921. 

Regarding  the  reasonableness  of  these  distributions  it  has  been 
shown  in  Table  68  that  the  cost  of  the  State  Education  Office  in 
Pennsylvania  per  pupil  enrolled  and  per  capita  of  population  was 
slightly  below  the  median  of  11  representative  states.  It  would 
seem,  therefore,  that  the  appropriations  for  the  State  Education 
Office  were  not  excessive.  Comparative  data  are  not  available  rela- 
tive to  the  cost  of  county  administration.  While  the  salaries  paid 
the  county  superintendents  of  the  state  are  higher  than  those  in 
any  other  state,  the  ability  of  men  filling  the  office  is  fully  equal, 
if  not  superior,  to  that  of  any  other  similar  group.  Another  fact 
that  should  be  recognized  in  this  connection  is  that  these  county 
superintendents  have  a  larger  number  of  schools  and  pupils"  to 
supervise  than  in  other  states.  It  is  believed  that  the  appropria- 
tions for  this  purpose  are  not  too  high. 

As  regards  the  proportion  of  the  total  appropriation  going  to  the 
local  school  districts  Table  68  should  again  be  cited.  It  was  shown 
that  in  the  year  1920  the  percentage  of  the  total  revenue  receipts 
of  local  school  districts  coming  from  the  state  was  16  percent  in 
Pennsylvania,  and  that  in  25  other  states  local  districts  received 
larger  proportions.  Judging  by  the  practice  of  other  states  it 
seems  that  the  appropriations  for  this  purpose  are  slightly  below 
the  norm. 

Comparative  data  relative  to  the  costs  of  vocational  education 


200 

are  not  at  hand.  It  was  pointed  out  in  Chapter  V  that,  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  vocational  education  in  this  state  has  become  so  well 
established  and  has  reached  such  a  high  stage  of  efficiency, 
possibly  the  time  has  come  when  a  larger  proportion  of  the  burden 
should  be  transferred  to  local  districts.  This  appropriation 
should  not  be  changed,  however,  unless  the  system  of  General 
Aid  recommended  in  Chapter  II  is  adopted. 

TABLE  70. 

Distribution  of  State  Money  (Appropriations  and  Income  from 
Permanent  Funds)  Given  to  Various  Types  of  Schools 
IN  THE  States  op  the  Union,  1920. 


States 


Public 
Schools 


Normal 
Schools 


Colleges  and 
Universities 


Total 


Alabama 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut.  .  .  . 

Delaware 

Florida 

Georgia 

Idaho 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts.  . 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Montana 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

New  Hampshire , 

New  Jersey 

New  Mexico ... 

New  York 

North  Carolina. . 
North  Dakota. . . 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania*.  . 
Rhode  Island .  .  . 
South  Carolina. . 
South  Dakota. . . 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virginia 

Washington .  . 
W.  Virginia. . . . 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 


$4,326,842 

948,977 

1,812,959 

8,608,848 

1.189,398 

1,816,216 

562,128 

430,257 

3,899,250 

642,965 

5,535,220 

4,219,990 

467,388 

564,675 

2,868,592 

2,472,125 

2,199,411 

2,038,785 

4,558,627 

7,067,032 

6,025,313 

2,022,800 

3,610,889 

1,122,150 

997,932 

359,120 

336,060 

13,745,932 

625,596 

12,731,091 

3,425,532 

1,415,889 

4,148,181 

1,433,003 

445,900 

11,485,630 

237,695 

958,823 

1,713,534 

1 , 529 , 525 

17,352,412 

2,014,177 

1,137,108 

4,289,524 

3,634,997 

709,531 

3,669,528 

736,889 


i     156,614 

385,555 

31,000 

1,066,153 

84 , 739 

602,085 


285 

500 

189 

807 

418 

670 

313 

816 

563 , 432 
286,682 

98,000 
142,924 
132,500 
746,889 
707,855 
584 , 585 

79,553 
498,648 

85,000 
301,645 


91,098 
418,675 
131,454 
1,388,079 
246,959 
448,763 
430,218 
479,460 

50,261 
608,780 

81,000 
186,990 
289,665 
131,381 
246,660 


15,246 

214,150 

6.37,670 

416,378 

1,150,541 


$     375,716 

488,868 

250,000 

2,682,597 

1,051,238 

426,111 

94,045 

350,710 

479,918 

483,890 

2 , 871 , 500 

1,438,650 

2,807.733 

1,867,103 

426,040 

210,042 

220,983 

247,526 

918,739 

3,209,144 

2,948,851 

787,707 

913,297 

791,501 

1,532,425 

241,708 

183,075 

316,978 

263.850 

1,532,906 

783.843 

567,680 

2,123,633 

1,631,783 

1,823,653 

1,893,238 

130,928 

806,685 

750,658 

273,000 

2,238,121 

1,127,566 

113,173 

733,008 

1,825,291 

562,561 

1,926,160 

203,858 


$  4,859,172 
1,823.400 
2,093,959 

12,357.598 
2,325,375 
2,744,412 
656,173 
780,967 
4,664,668 
1,316,662 
6,825.390 
5.972.456 
3.276.121 
2,995,210 
3,581.314 
2.780.167 
2,563.318 
2,418.811 
6,224,255 

10,984,031 
9,558,749 
2,889,860 
5.022.834 
1.998.651 
2,831,002 
600,828 
610,233 

14,481,585 
1,020,900 

15,652.076 
4.456,334 
2,432,332 
6,702,032 
3.544,246 
2,319,814 

13.987,648 

449,623 

1,952,498 

2.753,857 

1,933.906 

19,837.193 
3,141.743 
1.265.527 
5,236,682 
6,097,9.58 
1.688.470 
6,746.229 
940.747 


•Data  for  1921:  Public  Schools.$13,523,500;  Normal  Schools,  $2,450,158;  Colleges  and  univer- 
sities, $2,486,000;  total,  $18,459,658, 


201 

Comparative  data  relative  to  the  appropriations  for  normal 
schools  and  for  colleges  and  universities  are  available.  It  is  possible 
also  to  make  comparison  between  such  appropriations  and  the 
appropriations  made  for  the  benefit  of  the  public  schools.    These 


TABLE  71. 

Per  Capita  Distributions  of  State  Money  (Appropriations  and 

Income  from  Permanent  Funds)  Given  to  the  Various 

Types  of  Schools  in  the  States  of  the  Union,  1920. 


States 

Public 
Schools 

Normal 
Schools 

Colleges  and 
Universities 

Total 

Alabama 

Arizona 

$1.85 
2.84 
1.03 
2.52 
1.28 
1.31 
2.52 

.44 
1.35 
1.49 

.85 
1.44 

.19 

.32 
1.19 
1.38 
2.86 
1.41 
1.18 
1.93 
2.53 
1.13 
1.06 
2.05 

.77 
4.66 

.76 
4.36 
1.74 
1.22 
1.34 
2.21 

.72 

.71 

.57 
1.31 

.39 

.57 
2.72 

.68 
3.72 
4.58 
3.25 
1.86 
2.69 

.49 
1.39 

.38 

$   .06 
1.15 
.02 
.31 
.09 
36 

$   .16 

1.46 
.14 
.78 

1.13 
.31 
.42 
.36 
.16 

1.12 
.44 
.49 

1.17 

1.06 
.17 
.12 
.29 
.17 
.24 
.88 

1.23 
.44 
.27 

1.44 

1.19 

3.14 
.41 
.10 
.73 
.15 
.30 
.89 
.37 
.81 

2.34 
.22 
.22 
.48 

1.19 
.12 
.48 

2.56 
.32 
.32 

1.35 
.38 
.73 
.10 

$2.07 
5.45 
1   19 

California 

3  61 

2  50 

Connecticut 

1  98 

Delaware 

2  94 

Florida 

80 

Georgia 

.10 
.44 
.07 
.10 

1  61 

Idaho 

3  05 

1.36 

Indiana 

2  03 

Iowa 

1.36 

Kansas 

.32 
.12 
.05 
.18 
.09 
.19 
.19 
.24 
.04 
.14 
.15 
.23 

1.70 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

1.48 
1.55 

Maine 

3  33 

1.67 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

1.61 
3.00 
4.00 
1.61 

1.47 

3.64 

Nebraska 

2.19 
7.80 

New  Hampshire 

New  Jersey 

.20 
.13 
.36 
.13 
.10 
.70 
.07 
.23 
.06 
.07 
.13 
.11 
.46 
.06 
.05 

1.37 
4.59 

2.83 

New  York 

1.50 

1.74 

North  Dakota 

3.80 

Ohio 

1.16 

Oklahoma 

1.75 
2.97 

Pennsylvania* 

1.60 
.74 

1.16 

South  Dakota 

4.37 

.86 

Texas 

4.25 

Utah 

7.14 

Vermont 

.04 
.09 
.47 
.28 
.44 

3.61 

2.27 

Washington 

4.51 

1.15 

Wisconsin 

2.56 

.48 

•Data  for  1921: 
Total  $2.12. 


Public  Schools,  $1.55;  Normal  Schools,  $.28;  colleges  and  universities  $.29. 


statistics  are  furnished  through  the  courtesy  of  the  Commissioner 
of  Education  for  the  United  States  and  are  for  the  year  1919-20. 
The  actual  distribution  of  state  money  to  each  of  these  three  types 
of  schools  including  the  income  from  the  permanent  school  funds, 


202 

TABLE  72. 

Distribution  by  States  of  per  Capita  Amounts  of  State  Money 

(Appropriations  and  Income  from  Permanent  Funds)  Given  to 

Various  Types  of  Schools  in  48  States  of  the  Union — 1920. 


Per  Capita 
Amount 

Public 
Schools 

Normal 
Schools* 

Colleges  and 
Universities 

$       0-   .04                .      .  . 

3 
11 
9 
4 
4 
1 
2 
2 
2 
2 

.05-   .09 

.10-   .14. 

1 

5 

.15-   .19 

5 

.20-  .24 

3 

.25-   .29 

2 

.30-  .34 

1 
2 
1 

1 

1 
1 

1 
2 
2 

1 

1 
1 

1 
2 
1 
1 
4 
2 
2 
1 

1 

2 
1 

1 

1 

4 

.35-  .39.                 .    .  . 

3 

.40-   .44 

4 

.45-  .49 

3 

.50-  .54 

.55-  .59 

. 65-   . 69 

.70-   .74 

1 

2 

.75-  .79.                 .    .  . 

2 

.85-  .89 

2 

1 . 00-1 . 04 

1 . 05-1 . 09 . 

1 

1.10-1.14 



2 

1.15-1.19                  .    .. 

1 

3 

1.20-1.24 

1 

1.25-1.29.                 .    . 

1.30-1.34 

1.35-1.39.. 

1 

1 . 40-1 . 44 

1 

1.45-1.49. 

1 

1.70-1.74... 

1.85-1.89 

1 . 90-1 . 94 

2 . 05-2 .09 

2.20-2.24...             

2 . 30-2 . 34 

1 

2.45-2.49 

2.50-2.54..               .... 

3 

2.55-2.59 

1 

2 . 65-2 . 69 

1 
1 
2 
5 
48 
$1.35 

2.70-2.74. 

2.85-2.89.    . 

3.00  and  over 

1 

42 
$.163 

Medians 

48 
$.425 

*Six  states  have  no  normal  schools. 

which  go  to  the  benefit  of  the  public  schools,  is  given  in  Table  70 
(page  200).  From  this  it  maybe  seen  that  in  terms  of  dollars  given, 
the  appropriations  of  Texas,  New  Jersey  and  New  York  exceed  that 
of  Pennsylvania.  The  statement  is  no  longer  true  that  Pennsylvania 
gives  larger  appropriations  to  its  local  schools  than  any  other  state. 


203 

There  are  six  states  that  granted  larger  appropriations  to  normal 
schools:  New  York,  Wisconsin,  California,  Massachusetts,  Michi- 
gan and  Washington.  In  appropriations  to  the  higher  educational 
institutions,  Pennsylvania  is  ninth,  Michigan,  Minnesota,  Illinois, 
Iowa,  California,  Texas,  Ohio  and  Wisconsin  granting  larger 
amounts.  The  appropriations  of  three  other  states,  Oregon,  Kansas 
and  Washington,  were  less  than  Pennsylvania  by  less  than  $75,000. 
The  combined  appropriations  ($8,084,155)  of  Michigan,  Wisconsin 
and  Minnesota  for  higher  education  in  1920,  which  states  taken 
together  have  approximately  the  same  population  as  Pennsylvania, 
were  over  four  times  as  much  as  that  for  Pennsylvania 
($1,893,238). 

The  population  of  these  states  except  that  of  New  York  is  less 
than  Pennsylvania.  It  seems,  therefore,  that  as  measured  by  the 
probable  needs  of  the  state,  Pennsylvania  is  not  expending  as  much 
asmany  states.  In  order  to  test  this  out  Table  71  (page  201)  has  been 
prepared,  reducing  the  actual  costs  given  in  Table  70  to  costs  per 
capita.  Then,  in  order  to  have  them  in  a  form  in  which  comparison 
may  be  more  easily  made,  distribution  tables  covering  each  of  the 
columns  contained  therein  were  worked  out.  These  are  presented 
in  Table  72  for  public  schools,  for  normal  schools  and  for  colleges  and 
universities.  Table  73  (page  204)  gives  the  figures  for  all  three  com- 
bined. Taking  up  for  first  consideration  Table  71,  it  will  be  seen  that 
Pennsylvania's  per  capita,  $1.60,  is  40  cents  less  than  the  median 
for  the  group.  This  is  another  indication  that  Pennsylvania's 
educational  appropriations  might  rightfully  be  increased. 

Turning  now  to  the  distribution  of  this  $1.60  we  find  from 
Table  72  that  the  per  capita  for  public  schools,  $1.31,  is  slightly 
below  the  median,  $1.35.  This  measure  of  the  situation  in  Penn- 
sylvania is  in  close  agreement  with  that  furnished  in  Table  69, 
referred  to  above,  where  it  was  shown  that  in  the  percentage  of 
total  revenue  receipts  to  local  school  districts  coming  from  the 
state,  Pennsylvania's  percentage  was  about  five-tenths  of  one  per- 
cent less  than  the  median.  From  this  the  inference  may  be  drawn 
that  the  appropriations  for  public  schools  were,  in  1920,  near  the 
norm  as  measured  by  the  practices  of  other  states.  There  are, 
however,  certain  difficulties  always  connected  with  such  compara- 
tive measures.  They  cannot  because  of  their  general  nature  take 
into  account  the  details  of  the  situation  in  the  various  states.    The 


204 

data  given  in  Chapter  II  on  the  Public  Schools  indicate  that  the 
minimum  appropriation  for  public  schools  in  this  state,  in  order 
to  equalize  the  differences  in  wealth  and  to  stimulate  all  districts 
to  a  proper  degree,  should  be  about  $18,000,000  per  year. 

Table  72  also  shows  that  the  expenditures  for  normal  schools 
in  the  previous  biennium  were  very  low  as  compared  with  other 
states.  The  appropriation  for  the  present  biennium,  which  in- 
creases the  cost  per  capita  from  7  cents  to  28  cents,  is  probably 
not  much  above  the  norm,  if  any,  for  1921-22.  In  Chapter  III  it 
was  shown,  however,  that  the  costs  per  pupil  were  not  on  the  whole 
so  high. 

Pennsylvania's  appropriation  to  higher  educational  institutions 
is  below  the  median  amount  per  capita  of  population  which  in 
1920  was  42^  cents.  Pennsylvania's  per  capita  in  1920  was  22 
cents,  and  in  1921, 29  cents.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  Pennsylvania 
would  be  warranted,  upon  the  basis  of  the  practice  of  other  states, 
in  increasing  considerably  her  appropriations  for  higher  educa- 
tional institutions. 

Another  measure  of  the  reasonableness  of  appropriations  based 
upon  current  practice  is  that  furnished  by  the  taxable  wealth  of 

TABLE  73. 

Distribution  of  per  Capita  Distribution  of  State  Money 

(Appropriation  and  Income)  Given  to  Public  Schools, 

NoR^LAL  Schools  and  Universities  and  Colleges 

Combined  in  the  Various  States 

OF  the  Union — 1920. 


Per  Capita  Amount 

States 

$     0-  .24 

.25-   .49 

.50-   .74 

.75-   .99 

1 

1 
2 

1.00-1.24 

1.25-1.49 

1.50-1.74 

1.75-1.99 

4 
5 
9 
2 

2.00-2.24 

2.25-2.49 

3 
1 

2.50-2.74 

2.75-2.97 

3.00-3.24 

3.25-3.49 

3.50-3.74 

3.75-3.97 

4 .  00  and  over 

2 
3 
2 
1 
3 
1 
8 

Total 

Median 

48 
$2.00 

205 

the  various  states.  Inasmuch  as  the  latest  data  on  this  subject 
are  those  for  the  year  1913,  it  has  been  deemed  best  not  to  use 
them.  A  similar  type  of  data  is  that  furnished  by  the  amount  of 
income  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  various  states.  There  has  recently 
been  made  by  the  National  Bureau  of  Economic  Research  a  very 
careful  study  of  the  income  of  the  wealth  of  the  inhabitants  of  all 
the  states  dui-ing  the  year  1919.  Table  74  brings  into  relationship 
the  data  furnished  by  this  study  and  figures  for  the  cost  of  schools 

TABLE  74. 

Percent  of  State  Income  Given  to  Various  Types  of  Schools  in 
THE  States  of  the  Union — 1920. 


States 

Public 
Schools 

Normal 
Schools 

Colleges  and 
Universities 

Total 

.0052 
.0043 
.0027 
.0031 
.0019 
.0018 
.0032 
.0010 
.0034 
.0025 
.0011 
.0025 
.0003 
.0005 
.0030 
.0032 
.0049 
.0020 
.0015 
.0027 
.0043 
.0032 
.0019 
.0040 
.0011 
.0055 
.0013 
.0058 
.0042 
.0014 
.0034 
.0042 
.0010 
.0013 
.0008 
.0019 
.0005 
.0013 
.0039 
.0017 
.0069 
.0087 
.0061 
.0043 
.0034 
.0011 
.0025 
.0048 

.0002 
.0017 

.0005 
.0022 
.0004 
.0009 
.0017 
.0004 
.0005 
.0009 
.0004 
.0018 
.0005 
.0008 
.0016 
.0018 
.0004 
.0003 
.0005 
.0003 
.0003 
.0012 
.0021 
.0012 
.0005 
.0028 
.0017 
.0037 
.0007 
.0001 
.0018 
.0002 
.0008 
.0017 
.0005 
.0015 
.0032 
.0001 
.0003 
.0011 
.0018 
.0003 
.0009 
.0048 
.0006 
.0007 
.0017 
.0008 
.0013 
.0013 

0059 

0082 

0031 

.0004 
.0002 
.0005 

0044 

.0038 

0027 

0037 

Florida 

0019 

.0002 
.0007 
.0001 
.0002 

0040 

0050 

.0017 

0035 

.0019 

Kansas 

.0005 
.0003 
.0001 
.0003 
.0001 
.0002 
.0003 
.0004 
.0001 
.0003 
.0003 
.0003 

.0028 
.0037 

Louisiana 

.0036 
0057 

0024 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

.0020 
.0042 
.0068 
.0045 

.0027 

.0071 

Nebraska 

.0031 
.0092 

New  Hampshire 

.0003 
.0001 
.0009 
.0001 
.0002 
.0014 
.0001 
.0004 
.0001 
.0001 
.0002 
.0002 
.0006 
.0002 
.0001 

.0023 
.0060 

.0069 

.0017 

.0045 

North  Dakota 

.0073 

Ohio 

.0016 

.0032 

Oregon 

.0041 
.0021 

Rhode  Island 

South  Carolina 

South  Dakota 

.0010 
.0026 
.0063 
.0022 

Texas 

.0079 

Utah  .  .        

.0135 

Vermont 

.0001 
.0002 
.0006 
.0006 
.0008 

.0068 
.0052 

West  Virginia 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 

.0057 
.0025 
.0046 
.0061 

•Data  for   1921: 
.0004— Total  .0030. 


Public  Schools,  .0022;  Normal  Schools,  .0004;  colleges  and  universities, 


206 

TABLE  75. 

Distribution  by  States  of  Percent  of  State  Income  Given  to 
Various  Types  of  Schools  in  48  States — 1920. 


Percent 

Public 
Schools 

Normal 
Schools* 

Colleges  and 
Universities 

All  Schools 
Combined 

.0000-. 0004 

1 
3 
9 
5 
2 
5 
8 
1 
6 
2 
1 
2 
1 
1 

32 
8 
1 

1 

12 
15 
5 
10 
2 
1 
1 
1 

.0005-. 0009 

.0010-. 0014 

.0015-. 0019 

.0020-. 0024 

1 
5 
5 

.0025-. 0029 

5 

.0030-. 0034 

3 

.0035-. 0039 

5 

.0040-. 0044 

4 

.0045-. 0049 

1 

3 

.0050-. 0054 

2 

.0055-. 0059 

3 

.0060-. 0064 

3 

.0065-. 0069 

3 

.0070-. 0074 

2 

.0075-. 0079 

1 

.0080-. 0084 

1 

.0085-. 0089.. 

1 

.0090  and  over 

2 

Total 

48 
.0029 

42 
.00029 

48 
.0009 

48 

Medians 

.0040 

*Six  states  have  no  Normal  Schools. 

given  in  Table  70.  Table  74  shows  the  percent  of  the  total  income 
that  was  expended  by  the  states  for  each  of  the  three  main  types 
of  schools.  In  order  that  these  data  might  be  studied  satisfac- 
torily, distribution  tables  were  made  of  each  of  the  four  columns 
contained  in  this  table. 

Table  75  contains  a  distribution  of  the  figures  presented  in 
Table  74.  In  this  form  we  are  able  to  tell  at  a  glance  how  the 
percentages  for  Pennsylvania  compare  with  those  of  the  other 
states.  The  median  percentages  are  given  at  the  bottom  of  the 
respective  columns.  These  medians  should  be  read  as  follows: 
In  the  year  1920,  two-tenths  of  one  percent  of  the  income  of  the 
inhabitants  of  Pennsylvania  was  expended  for  the  support  of 
public  schools,  one  hundredth  of  one  percent  for  normal  schools, 
three  hundredths  of  one  percent  for  colleges  and  universities, 
and  twenty-four  hundredths  of  one  percent  for  the  three  classes 
of  schools  combined.  A  measure  of  the  same  expenditures  for  the 
year  1921  would  be  better  suited  to  our  purpose.  Accordingly, 
similar  percentages  for  Pennsylvania  have  been  arrived  at  in  the 
same  way  by  using  one-half  of  the  appropriations  for  the  biennium 
1921-23.     They  are  as  follows:     public   schools   .0022,  normal 


207 

schools  .0004,  higher  education  .0004,  all  schools  .0030.  This 
rather  crude  measure  indicates  that  in  all  classes  of  schools  and 
in  all  schools  combined,  Pennsylvania  is  not  expending  so  great  a 
proportion  of  its  annual  income  as  is  the  median  state. 

The  entire  chapter  furnishes  conclusive  proof  that,  in  any 
possible  scheme  for  retrenchment  in  expenditures  of  the  state,  in 
order  to  make  expenses  come  within  revenues,  there  are  no 
appropriations  in  excess  of  the  norm  as  determined  by  the  practice 
of  other  states,  except  possibly  in  the  case  of  normal  schools,  the 
appropriation  for  which  was  necessarily  unusually  large  this 
biennium  in  order  to  pay  off  indebtedness.  It  would  seem,  there- 
fore, that  reduction  in  this  field  of  appropriations  should  not  be 
made,  at  least  until  other  appropriations  shall  have  been  brought 
down  to  the  same  level.  Whether  it  should  be  done  at  this  time 
is  a  serious  question,  the  answer  to  which  is  dependent  in  large 
part  upon  the  importance  placed  upon  education  as  regards  the 
other  concerns  of  the  state.  It  is  believed  that  no  other  field  of 
governmental  activity  can  be  placed  ahead  of  education.  The  fact 
that  Pennsylvania  has  lagged  behind  the  other  states  in  this 
particular  during  the  past  decade  or  two  is  adequate  reason  for 
its  being  placed  in  a  favorable  position  in  the  consideration  of  the 
budget.  While  in  case  of  extreme  necessity  it  might  properly 
share  in  the  cutting  down  of  appropriations,  great  care  should  be 
taken  to  make  the  reduction  as  small  as  possible. 


LB2825 

11':  '1 11 11 

U66S 

rill 

nn'i 

1 

11   III    ll  1  II 

L  009 

1  III  III  II 1 1  II  '1  1 II 
612  462  3 

■i^ 


-0 


l_«.-^-'>*v     '^^< 


/ 


